Washington DOL is Sharing Data with ICE, and Another Powerful Resident Comment
WA said it wouldn’t help ICE. A new report says otherwise. Residents are speaking out.
Hi neighbors,
Yesterday, I shared a powerful public comment spoken at Thursday’s City Council meeting—a resident drawing a chilling comparison between the political moment we’re living through today and Germany in the 1930s. Her message was clear: we’ve seen how this kind of erosion of rights and surveillance infrastructure can end, and we must not stay silent.
Today, I’m sharing another voice. Many of you know her as an advocate for our city’s trees. But this time, she spoke as the daughter of an immigrant, a former social worker, and someone who sees troubling signs on the horizon, and chose to speak up before it’s too late.
Her words carried more weight than even she may have known—because the very next day, KING 5 Investigators confirmed that a major Washington state agency has been quietly helping ICE.
WA State Department of Licensing Shared Data with ICE
In an exclusive report published Friday, KING 5 revealed that the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) has been providing ICE, Border Patrol, and other Homeland Security departments with access to personal driver and vehicle data—including home addresses, names, and photographs.
And they did it after publicly claiming they had stopped.
Some highlights (and lowlights) from the investigation:
In 2018, after public outcry, DOL shut down ICE access. But quietly—later that same year—they reopened the accounts.
Since the 2024 election, ICE searches have jumped 188%, from 540 in November to more than 1,600 in May.
DOL says ICE agents are only allowed to use the data for purposes that are “legal in Washington.”
But how is that enforced?
Here’s the kicker:
According to DOL, ICE agents just have to promise—on their word—that they won’t use the data for deportation.
They can search for names, license plates, addresses, and vehicles as long as they “agree” not to misuse the information.
That’s it. That’s the whole safeguard.
No audit. No warrant. No oversight. Just a click of a box and a pinky swear.
That’s what they’re calling a safeguard.
Sound Familiar?
This is exactly the same logic that’s baked into Mountlake Terrace’s contract with Flock.
Under Section 5.3, Flock can share data if it has a “good faith belief” that doing so is necessary for safety, fraud prevention, or technical issues. It doesn’t require the city to be notified. It doesn’t stop Flock from sharing with federal agencies. It just asks us to trust that they’ll do the right thing.
If DOL can’t be trusted to follow the spirit of our state’s own sanctuary laws, why on earth should we trust a private surveillance company to act with more restraint?
This is why residents continue to speak up.
This is why trust in local leadership is shaken.
This is why we must make some meaningful changes before the cameras are installed.
A Powerful Public Comment
Here’s the full testimony delivered this week by Mountlake Terrace resident Audrey Meyer. It deserves to be heard in her own words:
Hello Council, Mayor,
I'm Audrey Meyer. I think you all know me now as someone who cares about our trees, and I’ve appreciated your support in protecting our urban forest. But you may not know I also have a background in social work and spent years working with immigrants and refugees. I’m also the daughter of an immigrant.
Today, I’m here to ask you to reconsider your decision on Flock. I know the vote was just a month ago, but a lot has changed since then.
I thought about attending the June 5 meeting but decided against it because I was traveling early the next morning to see family in California. That weekend, I was in Los Angeles when the protests began and the National Guard was deployed. A few days later, while I was waiting at LAX to fly home, my sister—just a couple minutes away at a Global Entry interview at the Customs and Border Protection office—saw the National Guard setting up, many carrying machine guns.
Then, days later, ICE agents were seen outside my nephew’s high school in a nearby city. The next day, ICE was chasing someone down my mom’s street. Back home, I felt both angry and afraid for the safety and rights of the people being targeted—and I found myself wondering how long until something like this shows up in Mountlake Terrace.
So I took those emotions and turned them into action. I joined a group of 10 other MLT residents at a Rapid Response and Know Your Rights training focused on ICE encounters.
And then, just last week, “The Act”—also known as the “Big Bill”—passed, dramatically increasing funding for ICE and CBP.
So I’m here today because I believe the best way I can advocate for those at risk of being targeted is to ask you to please revisit your vote. I know you all voted with safety in mind—but right now, I’m not worried about a masked burglar. I’m worried about a masked ICE agent. And I know I can’t fight back a federal officer.
Let’s not make it easy for ICE in Mountlake Terrace. Please don’t give them a reason to use resources here.
Yes, the Keep Washington Working Act says our local police can’t assist ICE—but it doesn’t prevent Flock from sharing information, or being forced to share it. It doesn’t stop ICE from accessing our city’s data through other cities, as has already happened elsewhere. As Councilmember Murray asked—how are we going to monitor the MOUs and ensure other cities are actually following them? And what about the vague, murky language that allows Flock to share information on its own?
I understand your agendas are planned ahead and packed. But given the level of public feedback and the rapidly changing political climate, I respectfully ask you to:
1. Revisit the Flock vote and vote no.
2. Re-establish a Community Policing Advisory Board, as Councilmember Paige proposed.
3. Begin a public conversation on how we’re going to protect the safety and rights of our immigrant neighbors.
There’s still time to get this right.
But only if we stop pretending that “promises” are the same thing as protections.
In Resistance,
Dustin