U.S.–Israel Law Enforcement Cooperation and Its Impact on Policing and Immigration Enforcement

For more than three decades, law enforcement agencies in the United States and Israel have engaged in formal cooperation programs involving training, intelligence sharing, and technology exchange. These partnerships are often described by participating agencies as counterterrorism or public safety initiatives. Critics, however, argue that they have contributed to the militarization of policing and immigration enforcement within the United States.

This set of relationships is commonly referred to by civil rights organizations as the Deadly Exchange, a term used to describe the flow of tactics and technologies between U.S. police departments, immigration authorities, and Israeli security forces.

Historical Background of Law Enforcement Exchanges

Formal exchanges between U.S. and Israeli law enforcement agencies began in the early 1990s and expanded significantly after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Under these programs, American police chiefs, federal agents, and homeland security officials have traveled to Israel to observe policing methods related to counterterrorism, crowd management, and intelligence coordination. Israeli officials have similarly visited U.S. agencies.

Supporters argue these exchanges enhance preparedness against security threats. Opponents contend that tactics developed in the context of military occupation are poorly suited to civilian policing and risk eroding civil liberties when applied domestically.

Surveillance Technologies and Border Enforcement

Israel is widely recognized for its advanced surveillance infrastructure, particularly in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This includes the use of biometric identification systems, closed-circuit cameras, facial recognition software, and aerial monitoring.

Similar technologies have been adopted by U.S. border and immigration agencies. Since 2014, the Department of Homeland Security has contracted with Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems to deploy surveillance towers along the U.S.–Mexico border. These systems integrate radar, cameras, and sensors to monitor movement without traditional physical barriers¹.

ICE has also contracted with Israeli digital forensics companies that provide tools capable of extracting data from mobile devices and analyzing digital communications². Civil liberties advocates have raised concerns about the scope of these tools and the lack of transparency surrounding their use.

Crowd Control and Protest Policing

Another area of cooperation involves crowd control and protest management. Joint trainings often focus on techniques for handling large demonstrations, emphasizing coordination, rapid response, and dispersal strategies.

In recent years, several U.S. police departments have publicly acknowledged drawing lessons from Israeli crowd management practices. In 2023, New York City officials stated that the New York City Police Department would adopt elements of Israeli crowd control methods, citing their effectiveness in managing large gatherings³.

Civil rights groups argue that such approaches can increase the likelihood of confrontations and suppress lawful protest if not carefully constrained.

Racial Profiling and Preventative Policing

Both U.S. policing and Israeli security practices have been criticized for relying on forms of preventative policing that disproportionately affect specific populations. In the United States, racial disparities in stops, searches, and arrests are well documented. Immigration enforcement has similarly been shown to disproportionately target certain communities.

In Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, security practices frequently designate Palestinians as potential security threats, leading to heightened surveillance and movement restrictions. Critics argue that cooperation between U.S. and Israeli agencies risks reinforcing profiling-based approaches rather than evidence-based policing.

Detention Practices and Human Rights Concerns

Human rights organizations have repeatedly documented conditions in U.S. immigration detention centers, citing overcrowding, inadequate medical care, and limited access to legal counsel⁴. Similar concerns have been raised regarding Israeli detention facilities holding Palestinians, including the use of administrative detention without formal charges⁵.

Advocates emphasize that prolonged detention under such conditions raises significant legal and ethical questions, regardless of jurisdiction.

Media Strategy and Public Perception

Both ICE and Israeli government agencies have invested in public communications strategies aimed at shaping public perception. These efforts include social media campaigns, recruitment advertising, and partnerships with digital influencers.

Investigative reporting has shown that Israel has funded online advocacy initiatives to promote favorable narratives internationally⁶. ICE has similarly allocated funds toward digital recruitment and public relations efforts intended to improve its public image⁷.

Assessing the Implications

The cooperation between U.S. law enforcement agencies, immigration authorities, and Israeli security forces reflects broader global trends toward surveillance-driven and militarized approaches to public safety. Supporters argue these partnerships enhance security and preparedness. Critics counter that they risk undermining civil liberties, particularly when tactics developed in conflict or occupation settings are applied to civilian populations.

As debates over policing, immigration enforcement, and surveillance continue in the United States, the scope and impact of these international exchanges remain a subject of growing scrutiny.

---

Footnotes & Sources

1. ACLU analysis of DHS contracts with Elbit Systems; DHS procurement records
2. Amnesty International reporting on ICE contracts with Cellebrite and other Israeli firms
3. New York City press briefings and civil rights organization responses, 2023
4. ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and DOJ Office of Inspector General reports on ICE detention
5. Amnesty International and B’Tselem documentation on Israeli administrative detention
6. Truthout investigative reporting on pro-Israel influencer campaigns
7. Mashable reporting on ICE influencer recruitment and digital media spending