Thomson Reuters axed a 20-year employee after she asked how ICE was using its data to hunt immigrants. Now she’s suing
Where is the accountability?
Thomson Reuters fired a 20-year employee after she asked how the company’s data tools were being used by ICE to track immigrants. Now, Billie Little is suing, claiming her termination violated Oregon’s whistleblower protections. According to NPR, Little, who worked in legal publishing, was part of a group of employees that sent a letter to management in February 2026.
The letter raised concerns that ICE might be using Thomson Reuters products unlawfully, particularly its CLEAR platform, which aggregates billions of data points including license plate information and social media activity. The company has contracts worth tens of millions of dollars with ICE, including a nearly $5 million deal from May 2025 for license plate reader data.
A few days later, Little was called into an HR meeting and fired. Her lawsuit argues she was targeted for speaking out and never received a clear explanation for her dismissal.
Little’s firing shows how tech companies profit from government contracts
A company spokesperson told NPR the company “strongly dispute[s] the allegations” and plans to “robustly defend the case.” “Instead of addressing our concerns, our legitimate concerns, instead, they turn toward investigating me,” Little said. “And I was instrumental in leading the group. So I think that clearly they were trying to chill [the] activity of workers, and that should scare every worker across the country.”
While Thomson Reuters maintained that CLEAR is intended for investigating crimes like human trafficking and financial fraud, employees like Little grew suspicious after reports surfaced of ICE agents using the tool to target immigrants and protesters without criminal records. Her concerns weren’t isolated. In February, she and about 170 colleagues formed the “Committee to Restore Trust”.
The letter they sent warned that Thomson Reuters products “may enable activities that violate constitutional protections,” including Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and Fifth Amendment due process guarantees. They asked for an all-hands meeting to discuss oversight of the company’s ICE contracts, but were ignored. “They called us brave for bringing it to their attention,” Little recalled. “But nothing else happened.”
The company’s response has frustrated shareholders too
The British Columbia General Employees’ Union, which owns shares in Thomson Reuters, filed a proposal demanding an independent review of whether the company’s products contribute to human rights violations when used by law enforcement. “The questions that Billie Little was asking of her employer weren’t all that different from the questions that we, as a long-term shareholder, have been asking,” said Emma Pullman, the union’s head of shareholder engagement.
Privacy advocates have long warned about the dangers of data brokers selling personal information to government agencies without warrants. Thomson Reuters is one of the biggest players in this space, and its contracts with ICE have raised alarms about how easily law enforcement can access sensitive data.
“Right now, there are few legal safeguards in place preventing [Thomson Reuters] from selling tons of data to whoever it wants or preventing TR’s customers from using the data however they want,” said Sarah Lamdan, a privacy researcher and author of Data Cartels. The issue extends beyond Thomson Reuters. Federal agencies, including the FBI and ICE, routinely purchase bulk data from brokers, bypassing warrant requirements.
According to NPR, this practice has become even more concerning with the rise of AI, which can analyze vast datasets to build detailed profiles of individuals. “If you consolidate enough data about a person, you can infer all sorts of very personal information about them that would require a warrant to obtain through normal investigation practices,” Lamdan said.
Congress is currently debating reforms to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was set to expire on April 20. Privacy advocates see this as the best chance to close the “data broker loophole” that allows agencies to buy information they couldn’t legally collect themselves. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Warren Davidson, has introduced legislation to end the practice.
But the push for reform faces opposition
The White House and House Speaker Mike Johnson are pushing for a “clean” reauthorization of FISA without any changes, arguing that the law is critical for national security. Some Democrats also support this approach, fearing that reforms could weaken surveillance capabilities.
“My client reported conduct that she reasonably believed was unlawful, and she was fired for it,” said Maria Witt, one of Little’s attorneys. “That is expressly prohibited here in Oregon.” The lawsuit seeks to reverse her termination and secure lost wages and damages.
The case also highlights the human cost of data-driven surveillance. Little described how colleagues in the company’s Minnesota office were terrified after ICE agents swarmed the area following the fatal shootings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti. “People afraid to go to work, people afraid to take their kids to school, people being followed,” she recalled. Protesters reported that ICE agents seemed to know their names and addresses, likely from license plate data.
Thomson Reuters has tried to distance itself from these concerns. In an email to NPR, the company said its tools “support investigations into areas of national security and public safety” and that it maintains “strong safeguards” to ensure its products are used legally. But the company’s past statements have been inconsistent.
An archived description of CLEAR once stated it was “not designed for use for mass illegal immigration inquiries or for deporting non-criminal undocumented persons.” Yet recent contracts suggest ICE is using the tool for exactly those purposes. The legal battle over Little’s firing could set a precedent for how companies handle employee whistleblowers, especially in industries where data and surveillance intersect.
(Featured image: Jason Zhang)
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
