Federal agencies use drone surveillance and data brokers to monitor local groups in Minnesota
Court filings in the Minnesota 15 trial reveal that DHS is deploying tools typically reserved for organized crime to track protesters and small businesses.
By Alina Campbell ·
Residents in the Minneapolis area are facing a wider scope of federal monitoring than previously known. Court documents from the ongoing trial of the Minnesota 15 show that federal agencies have used advanced technology and data brokers to track the movements and finances of local organizations and individuals.
The Department of Homeland Security has applied programs named Project Whipple Shield and Operation Puppet Master to these domestic cases. These initiatives were originally designed for investigations into sex trafficking rings, drug cartels, and international terrorist groups. The agencies have used Reaper drones and tools authorized under the Patriot Act, which are usually restricted to money laundering and terrorism probes.
Ali Winston, writing for Wired, notes that the surveillance includes running license plates of cars parked outside community meetups. Investigators also collected data on PayPal transactions, browser histories, and Signal chats through data brokers. Undercover operatives infiltrated neighborhood chat groups and churches, a move that occurred in apparent violation of a court order.
One attorney involved in the case compared the DHS campaign to the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program, or COINTELPRO. That program unconstitutionally surveilled and infiltrated civil rights and anti-war movements from the 1950s through the early 1970s. The current investigation targets ICE protestors and local organizations such as Monarca, labor unions, and the Grease Pit Bike shop.
In August, Madison McVan of the Minnesota Reformer detailed how the department used artificial intelligence to track these local entities. The breadth of the surveillance suggests a shift in how federal resources are allocated for domestic policing. The use of tools reserved for high-level crimes indicates a high priority for these local investigations.
The trial’s discovery phase continues to reveal the extent of the government’s reach. The agencies have utilized funds and technology typically reserved for transnational criminal networks. This expansion of domestic surveillance tools has raised questions about the limits of federal power in monitoring ordinary citizens and small businesses.
The Minnesota 15 case serves as a legal test for these methods. The specific programs and technologies cited in the filings provide a clear picture of the resources dedicated to this domestic terrorism investigation. The process of uncovering these details is ongoing as the trial moves forward.
