DHS Is Hiring Bounty Hunters to Find and Photograph Deported People’s Homes Abroad

The federal government has initiated a search for private sector partners to execute a program titled Tracing and Payment Recovery Services. According to internal documents reviewed by media outlets, the program is slated to receive $9 million in funding over the next two years. The scope of this operation includes, but is not limited to, Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala. Under the terms of the solicitation, private contractors are expected to perform “commercial data verification and physical observation services” to confirm the current residences of individuals who have been removed from the United States or who have otherwise departed the country while carrying outstanding financial penalties.

The Mechanism of Enforcement

The federal mandate requires contractors to provide substantive evidence of an individual’s location. Acceptable documentation includes photographs of a subject’s residence, utility bills, employment records, and court documents. In instances where the individual is deceased, contractors are tasked with obtaining official death certificates. If an individual is located, the investigators are required to deliver a government-approved notice—printed in both English and Spanish—that explicitly lists the outstanding fines and fees allegedly owed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its subsidiary, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

The government maintains a broad standard for evidence, stipulating that any documentation deemed “relevant and credible” will be accepted. This effort represents a significant expansion of the federal government’s reach, extending the administrative apparatus of US immigration enforcement beyond its sovereign borders.

A Legislative History of Civil Monetary Penalties

The legal foundation for these fines rests upon an obscure provision of the 1996 immigration law. While the provision remained largely dormant for decades, it was revitalized during the first term of the Trump administration. As of July, DHS reported that it had issued more than $84 billion in civil fines to immigrants accused of failing to depart the United States in accordance with removal orders.

These penalties are severe in scale. Under the current enforcement framework, individuals still residing in the country can be fined up to $998 per day, a cost that accrues for up to five years. In some documented cases, individual liabilities have reached as high as $1.8 million. Legal experts have characterized these notices as a form of “shadow enforcement,” noting that they often bypass traditional due process channels.

A report published by the New York University School of Law’s Immigrant Rights Clinic highlighted the cascading consequences of these fines. The study found that individuals who receive these notices frequently face the seizure of tax returns, the garnishment of wages, and the long-term degradation of their credit scores. For many, these penalties serve as a functional deterrent intended to compel self-deportation.

The Paradox of Self-Deportation and Waiver Programs

DHS has proposed a mechanism for fine forgiveness: individuals who utilize the “CBP Home” application to document their self-deportation may be eligible for a waiver of their outstanding penalties. However, the policy contains notable exceptions. A separate $5,130 fee, established by Congress last year for individuals ordered removed in absentia and subsequently arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is legally barred from being waived or reduced.

This creates a precarious situation for those attempting to comply with government directives. An individual who leaves the country via the CBP app, under the impression that they have achieved a “clean slate,” may still find themselves liable for thousands of dollars in non-waivable fees. Legal analysts suggest that by pursuing these individuals in their home countries, the government is effectively undermining its own incentive structure, signaling to the immigrant population that compliance with departure orders does not guarantee financial relief.

Institutional Skepticism and Congressional Oversight

The policy has faced sharp criticism from both legal advocacy groups and members of the US Senate. In July, Senators Dick Durbin and Alex Padilla addressed a formal inquiry to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin. The senators demanded to know how these fines were being applied, particularly regarding individuals with pending legal statuses, survivors of domestic violence, and victims of human trafficking.

Senator Durbin characterized the administration’s actions as a “vindictive mass deportation campaign,” noting the contradiction between the administration’s stated goals of reducing “government waste” and the allocation of taxpayer funds to pursue low-income individuals abroad. The senators requested a detailed breakdown of how many penalties had been referred to private debt collectors and requested a response by July 31. According to Congressional sources, neither the Department of Justice nor the Department of Homeland Security provided the requested information by the deadline.

The Role of Private Contractors

The Tracing and Payment Recovery Services program operates on a performance-based model. Contractors are paid a set fee for every individual they successfully locate and document. Tiered bonuses are available for reports delivered within 7, 14, or 28 days of the initial data hand-off from CBP. Notably, these payments are not contingent on the actual recovery of funds; the government pays for the intelligence, regardless of whether the debt is collected.

This model mirrors the structure of existing contracts within the broader immigration enforcement ecosystem. In December, ICE awarded $1.2 billion in contracts to 13 private companies for similar “skip-tracing” services. Civil liberties advocates, including Sharon Bradford Franklin of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, have likened these firms to “bounty hunters,” arguing that the outsourcing of federal surveillance to private entities creates a lack of accountability and oversight.

Broader Implications and International Relations

The attempt to enforce these penalties internationally raises significant questions regarding extraterritorial reach. As of July, the three primary debt collection agencies currently under contract with CBP had not successfully located a single individual outside the United States, despite an estimated 66,387 people being subject to such penalties.

International cooperation remains a hurdle. When questioned regarding their knowledge of or participation in these efforts, the foreign ministries of Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras did not provide comments. Legal experts note that without the cooperation of local authorities, the ability of US-based private investigators to access foreign records—such as utility bills or property files—is highly limited, potentially forcing contractors to rely on less reliable, third-party data sources.

Economic and Humanitarian Concerns

Critics argue that the financial pursuit of deported individuals is fundamentally irrational. Hasan Shafiqullah, an immigration supervising attorney with the Legal Aid Society, observed that many of the individuals targeted have no access to US financial systems. “It makes no sense to go after people here if they don’t have the money,” Shafiqullah stated, pointing out that many of those affected are from mixed-status families.

The CBP’s own documentation acknowledges that payments “may be made by the individual or another party.” This phrasing has sparked concern that the government is essentially pressuring family members still residing in the United States to pay off the debts of deported relatives, effectively placing a financial burden on individuals who may have legal status or permanent residency.

Conclusion

As the August 7 deadline for bidding on these contracts passed, the CBP’s strategy remains clear: the agency intends to leverage the private sector to bridge the gap between US policy and international reality. While the government maintains that these measures are necessary for administrative compliance, the combination of high-dollar penalties, the use of private contractors, and the disregard for the financial status of the deported has drawn intense scrutiny.

The program represents a significant escalation in the federal government’s immigration enforcement tactics. Whether this investment will yield the desired financial recovery or simply serve as a further instrument of deterrence remains a subject of ongoing debate. For now, the administration continues to move forward with a plan that experts suggest is as much about the symbolic projection of power as it is about the actual collection of civil monetary penalties.