DHS Ousts CBP Privacy Officers Who Questioned 'Illegal' Orders

The US Department of Homeland Security removed multiple career Customs and Border Protection officials after they objected to orders to mislabel records about surveillance technologies.

Published on Mar. 10, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The US Department of Homeland Security removed multiple career Customs and Border Protection officials from their roles this year after they objected to orders to mislabel records about surveillance technologies and block their release under the Freedom of Information Act.

Why it matters

This case highlights concerns about government transparency and accountability, as well as the potential misuse of privacy laws to conceal information about surveillance programs from the public. It raises questions about the ability of career civil servants to challenge what they view as unlawful directives from political leadership.

The details

Since January, DHS leaders have reassigned two of the top officials responsible for ensuring that CBP technologies comply with federal privacy law, after they objected to orders to treat routine compliance forms as legally privileged and label signed privacy assessments as 'drafts' exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The director of CBP's FOIA office was also removed last month. DHS ordered the new secrecy rules after a CBP FOIA officer lawfully released a redacted privacy assessment, triggering backlash from DHS political leadership.

  • In December, the DHS Privacy Office announced a 'major change' requiring all future Privacy Threshold Analyses (PTAs) to carry a disclaimer marking them exempt from public release.
  • In February, the DHS deputy FOIA chief wrote in an email that 'PTAs are NOT supposed to be released at all'.

The players

Ginger Quintero-McCall

An attorney at the public interest law firm Free Information Group, and former supervisory information law attorney at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a DHS component.

Roman Jankowski

The current chief privacy officer at the Department of Homeland Security.

Catrina Pavlik-Keenan

The deputy FOIA chief at the Department of Homeland Security.

Nathan Wessler

The deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

Jeramie Scott

The senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This policy change is illegal. There is nothing in the FOIA statute—or any other statute—that allows the agency to categorically withhold Privacy Threshold Analyses.”

— Ginger Quintero-McCall, Attorney, Free Information Group (WIRED)

“It is especially important that the public have access to these records when agency staff conclude there is no significant privacy impact, because that ends the review process entirely, with no subsequent assessment ever prepared.”

— Nathan Wessler, Deputy Director, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project (WIRED)

“Career DHS Privacy officials were right to protest such a blanket move towards secrecy. FOIA requires narrow redactions over wholesale secrecy and withholding the records outright would allow DHS to evade public scrutiny of its expanding surveillance operations.”

— Jeramie Scott, Senior Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center (WIRED)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow the reassigned DHS privacy officers to return to their previous roles.

The takeaway

This case highlights the tension between government transparency and national security priorities, as well as the challenges faced by career civil servants in pushing back against what they view as unlawful directives from political leadership. It underscores the importance of robust public oversight of government surveillance programs and the need for clear, enforceable privacy protections.