Do social media platforms have policies against doxing ICE agents or their families?

1. DHS and ICE treat doxxing as a criminal and safety issue, not merely a platform policy problem

Department of Homeland Security statements in the reporting frame doxxing of ICE officers and their families as a serious threat that has produced threats and alleged real-world assaults, and the department says it will prosecute those who publish officers’ personal information “to the fullest extent of the law” ^{[1] [4]}. DHS materials detail incidents—alleged livestreams of pursuit to an agent’s home and online postings of a home address, death threats sent to family members, and online posts that led to an arrest in San Diego—using those examples to justify the department’s public appeals and reporting hotlines ^[1].

2. Civil‑liberties groups push back: recording and posting video of officers in public is protected speech

Civil‑liberties organizations cited in the sources reject DHS’s broad characterization of videotaping or posting photos of ICE officers as doxxing, pointing to First Amendment precedents that protect recording public officials performing public duties in public spaces and urging caution about conflating accountability journalism with criminal harassment ^{[5] [2]}. The ACLU argues that recording and dissemination of footage in public is a form of public oversight and is protected by case law, explicitly contesting DHS’s public statements that equate videotaping with doxxing ^{[5] [2]}.

3. Lawmakers are trying to move the question into criminal law, not platform moderation policy

Several members of Congress have sought statutory remedies: the Protecting Law Enforcement From Doxxing Act, for example, would create federal penalties—including fines and possible prison time—for publicly identifying an officer with intent to obstruct an investigation or enforcement action, illustrating a legislative attempt to criminalize some forms of identification beyond whatever platforms do or don’t remove ^[3]. Reporting shows this is an active policy front where the federal response is being shaped by safety arguments from DHS and pushback from privacy and civil‑liberties perspectives ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Technology and grassroots projects complicate the enforcement picture

Independent projects and social posts that publish names or use AI to “unmask” officers are singled out in the reporting as flashpoints; some operators defend posting only names and say they avoid addresses, while DHS and some lawmakers argue even a name can be a gateway to doxxing and harm ^[6]. The reporting also documents real instances where hotel employees or social users allegedly leaked names, photos or surveillance images on platforms such as Reddit and TikTok—demonstrating how platform distribution plays a role even if the sources do not quote the platforms’ rules directly ^[7].

5. What the supplied reporting does and does not show about platform policies

The assembled sources consistently document governmental condemnation, threatened prosecutions, proposed federal criminal statutes, and civil‑liberties defenses of recording public officials, but none of the provided pieces quote or reproduce social media companies’ content‑policy texts or enforcement actions specific to doxxing ICE agents or their families; therefore, the question of whether and how each platform’s rules apply is unanswered by these sources and would require direct citation of platform policy documents or platform statements to resolve ^{[1] [5] [3] [6]}. The public debate in these sources centers on legal and safety responses rather than documented content-moderation language from the platforms themselves.