The Palantir logo and a rising stock graph are seen in this illustration taken August 3, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
Palantir’s ICE Contracts Under Fire as Medicaid Data Allegedly Used to Generate Deportation “Leads”
(Miami, Florida) -Palantir Technologies is facing mounting backlash after reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is using a data-analysis tool built by the company to help identify people for potential deportation — including by drawing from Medicaid and other government databases.
We have moved our headquarters to Miami, Florida.
— Palantir (@PalantirTech) February 17, 2026
The controversy comes at a volatile moment for immigration enforcement policy, as federal agencies expand their reliance on AI-driven systems and large-scale data integration. Civil liberties groups argue that merging public-benefits data with enforcement platforms raises serious privacy and due process concerns, while supporters say the technology helps agencies operate more efficiently.
As criticism intensified online, Palantir posted on X that it is relocating its corporate headquarters to Miami. The company did not directly reference the backlash in its announcement, but the timing of the move is already fueling speculation among critics who see it as coming amid one of the most contentious periods in the company’s relationship with federal immigration authorities.
The Tool at the Center of the Debate
The system reportedly used by ICE is known as ELITE — short for Enhanced Leads Identification & Targeting for Enforcement. According to investigative reporting, the tool aggregates government datasets to create profiles, map possible locations of individuals, and generate what has been described as an address “confidence score.”
In practical terms, that means agents may be able to pull together information from multiple sources into a single dashboard to prioritize enforcement actions.
Palantir has long served as a major data infrastructure contractor for federal agencies, and ELITE appears to build on that foundation.
Medicaid Data and a Major Data-Sharing Agreement
At the heart of the controversy is the reported use of Medicaid-related data.
Last year, ICE and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services entered into a data-sharing agreement that allows immigration authorities access to large-scale enrollee data. Reports indicate the dataset includes information tied to tens of millions of Medicaid recipients.
Privacy advocates argue that many Americans assume health and benefits data is insulated from law enforcement use. The expansion of inter-agency data sharing has raised concerns about how that information may be repurposed.
ImmigrationOS and Expanding AI Infrastructure
Palantir’s relationship with ICE extends beyond ELITE.
The company previously secured a multi-year federal contract to help develop an AI-enabled platform often referred to as ImmigrationOS. The system is designed to help manage and analyze immigration enforcement workflows, including tracking case progress and identifying enforcement targets.
Palantir has marketed similar systems to government clients worldwide as critical infrastructure for national security, intelligence, and law enforcement.
Civil Liberties Groups Sound the Alarm
Digital rights organizations have sharply criticized the integration of health and immigration data.
Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation argue that merging sensitive public-benefits data into enforcement systems effectively transforms healthcare records into investigative tools. They warn that such practices could discourage immigrant families — including U.S. citizens in mixed-status households — from seeking medical care or enrolling in public programs.
Health policy analysts have also cautioned that large datasets may not reliably distinguish between lawful residents and undocumented individuals, raising the risk of inaccuracies.
Surveillance Tools Expand Beyond Immigration
The broader debate over ICE’s technology stack includes more than just Medicaid-linked data.
Recent reporting shows the agency has expanded use of facial recognition software, social media monitoring systems, and commercial data brokers. Officials have acknowledged the use of mobile facial-recognition tools and AI-assisted databases that combine government and commercially purchased information.
Civil liberties attorneys argue that the aggregation of these technologies — when used together — dramatically increases the government’s ability to monitor individuals in real time.
The Department of Homeland Security has said law enforcement agencies nationwide use technological innovation to combat crime and that ICE’s tools are deployed lawfully.
Political and Business Stakes for Palantir
For Palantir, the controversy carries both reputational and commercial implications.
The company has positioned itself as a premier government technology partner, working across defense, tax enforcement, public health logistics, and immigration systems. CEO Alex Karp has previously framed the company’s government work as essential to national security and crime prevention.
But critics argue that Palantir’s expanding role in civil immigration enforcement places the company at the center of heated political battles over privacy, due process, and executive power.
Employee petitions and public letters from former staff in recent years have also highlighted internal disagreements about the company’s ICE contracts.
The Bigger Question: Data Power in the Age of AI
The fight over Palantir and ICE is ultimately about more than one tool or one contract.
It reflects a broader shift in how government agencies use artificial intelligence, predictive modeling, and mass data integration. Supporters argue these tools improve efficiency and public safety. Opponents warn they create opaque systems with limited oversight and few mechanisms for individuals to challenge errors.
As immigration enforcement expands under current federal policy, the role of private technology firms in shaping that enforcement will likely face continued scrutiny — in Congress, in courtrooms, and in the court of public opinion.
