Fact check: That ICE is intentionally targeting all US citizens with this tool or that there is a definitive ruling that ICE's new tools will lead to racial profiling of U.S. citizens true or false

1. Why the “intentional targeting of all citizens” claim collapses under the evidence

No reporting in the set asserts that ICE explicitly declared a policy to intentionally target all U.S. citizens; coverage instead documents incidents where citizens were detained during raids and tools that could affect citizens’ privacy. Local reporting in Chicago and Elgin documents U.S. citizens detained and later released during operations, which raises questions about operational error or overreach rather than evidence of a nationwide, intentional policy to target all citizens ^{[5] [6]}. Technology-focused reporting likewise shows ICE’s expanded capabilities—phone cracking, facial recognition—but does not present a source claiming those tools were designed to sweep up all citizens by design ^{[1] [3]}. A legal ruling discussed in other sources changes legal standards but does not equate to an admission of intent to target all citizens ^[2].

2. The Supreme Court decision: broader discretion, not an unequivocal endorsement of profiling

A September Supreme Court ruling allowed ICE agents to consider factors such as race, language, and employment location when deciding stops, a shift that civil liberties advocates say could enable profiling; the decision itself judicially adjusts permissible inquiry rather than issuing an order to racially profile U.S. citizens ^[2]. Advocacy voices described the decision as a green light for profiling, especially in Latino communities, and framed it as a violation of constitutional protections, signaling legal and political backlash ^[4]. The reporting establishes fact that the Court altered standards in a way that critics fear will increase profiling, but it does not equate to a binding, unequivocal declaration that ICE must or will racially profile U.S. citizens in every context ^{[2] [4]}.

3. Ground reports of U.S. citizens detained during raids show operational risks, not a confirmed national policy

Local journalism documents several incidents in September where U.S. citizens were detained in ICE operations—Chicago raids with alleged unlawful arrests and an Elgin operation where citizens were later released—indicating operational problems, potential violations of settlement terms, and civil-rights claims rather than systemic proof of intentional targeting of all citizens ^{[5] [6]}. A high-profile civil claim by a 79-year-old injured U.S. citizen underscores the human costs and legal exposure arising from enforcement tactics; such lawsuits often allege civil-rights violations and spark oversight but are not legal proof of a premeditated plan to target citizens nationwide ^[7].

4. Technology expansion raises privacy and civil-rights alarms without proving intentional mass targeting

Reporting on ICE’s procurement of facial-recognition and phone-access tools documents expanded surveillance capabilities and a lack of transparency, prompting Congressional and advocacy scrutiny; Senators demanded that ICE stop using certain apps, citing accuracy and legal concerns ^{[1] [8]}. Journalists and watchdogs highlight the opacity around phone-cracking systems and facial recognition, which creates plausible pathways for misuse against citizens, including potential misidentification and incidental collection of lawful residents’ data. These technological facts justify concern but do not by themselves demonstrate a deliberate policy aimed at all U.S. citizens ^{[3] [8]}.

5. Conflicting narratives: civil-liberties advocates vs. legal defenders and operational records

Civil-liberties groups frame judicial and operational developments as evidence of a slide toward racialized enforcement and community harm, emphasizing the Supreme Court decision and local detention incidents as precursors to systemic profiling ^{[4] [5]}. Reporting citing the Court’s text and ICE technologies presents a more technical framing—legal permission to consider certain factors and acquisition of surveillance tools—leaving room for legal defenses that actions remain within law enforcement discretion and for ICE to argue incidents were mistakes or targeted at noncitizen suspects. The evidence in the provided reporting shows disagreement about implications and intent, not unanimity on inevitable, systemwide citizen-targeting ^{[2] [1]}.

6. What’s omitted or unresolved that matters to the claim’s accuracy

Key gaps remain: there is no documentation here of a Department of Homeland Security or ICE directive saying “target all U.S. citizens,” no statistical proof that tools are being applied chiefly against citizens nationwide, and no final adjudication finding national-scale racial profiling caused by these tools. The supplied coverage includes lawsuits, Senate letters, and local reporting that raise red flags and show harms, but absent are internal policy memos or comprehensive audits demonstrating an intentional policy to target citizens or a definitive judicial finding that tools will inevitably produce racial profiling ^{[7] [3] [2]}.

7. Bottom line for readers weighing the original statement

Based on the reviewed reporting, the statement that ICE is intentionally targeting all U.S. citizens is false, while the claim that there is a definitive ruling proving ICE’s tools will cause racial profiling is overstated and unsupported by a single conclusive legal finding; the facts show legal changes, troubling incidents, and surveillance expansion that create real risks for citizens and minorities, but the evidence supports concern and scrutiny more than incontrovertible proof of intentional, nationwide citizen-targeting ^{[2] [5] [1]}.