Biggs Introduces Act to Publicly List Deportation Orders

(ARIZONA, UNITED STATES) Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) introduced the Deportation Disclosure Act in October 2025, a measure that would require DHS to create a public, searchable registry of people who receive a final order of removal after the law takes effect. The registry would post each person’s name, photograph, known aliases, and last known state of residence on the department’s official website. Supporters frame it as a transparency and safety tool; critics warn it could expose sensitive information and invite misuse.

Under the bill, DHS would amend Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a) to mandate public disclosure tied to new final orders. As of October 27, 2025, the bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives but has not become law. DHS does not currently maintain any such public list. Existing systems, such as the ICE Detainee Locator, only allow the public to look up people who are in custody, not those with final orders who are not detained.

The proposal lands amid wider enforcement moves under President Trump, including expanded use of federal databases, broader surveillance tools, and a larger role for expedited removal procedures starting in January 2025.

Policy Background and Debate

Policy debate around the Deportation Disclosure Act sharpened after the arrest of Ian Roberts, a Guyanese national who worked as a school superintendent despite a standing deportation order, according to congressional backers. Supporters say a public registry would have made it easier for employers and local officials to catch discrepancies. Opponents argue that building a database of personal data tied to immigration status could stigmatize entire communities, including U.S. citizens who share similar names or backgrounds.

At the end of 2024, more than one million people in the United States were reported to have a final order of removal but had not departed. For advocates of the bill, that figure signals a major enforcement gap. For civil liberties groups, it shows the size of a population that could face public exposure if future final orders automatically appear online. Both sides agree the scale is large; they diverge on whether a public registry is the right answer.

Policy Proposal and Core Requirements

The Deportation Disclosure Act would require DHS to post specific information for people who receive a new final order of removal after the law’s enactment. Key elements include:

• Scope: Applies to all individuals who receive a final order of removal after the law takes effect.
• Data disclosed: Name, photograph, known aliases, and last known state of residence.
• Publication platform: DHS’s official website with a searchable public registry.
• Statutory change: Amendment to Section 240 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1229a) to mandate disclosure.

Proponents’ view:

• They argue the details are limited but useful.
• Basic identifying information would help local law enforcement and the public recognize when someone with a final order continues to work in sensitive roles or moves between states.
• Limiting the registry to post-enactment final orders avoids retroactive penalties.

Opponents’ concerns:

• Photographs, aliases, and last known state of residence can invite harassment and profiling.
• Errors could place the wrong person in a public database.
• Once listed, people could face long-lasting harm to jobs, housing, and safety.
• Civil liberties groups warn about doxxing and spread of data to private watchlists.

Important: Supporters and critics both highlight significant risks and potential benefits; their disagreement is about which set of harms or advantages should guide policy.

Implementation Questions and Operational Challenges

If Congress passes the bill, DHS would have to build, secure, and maintain the registry, and update it as new final orders are issued.

Operational points and concerns:

• DHS would need clear standards to verify identities, especially when multiple aliases exist.
• Procedures must exist to remove incorrect listings and to handle cases that are stayed or reopened on appeal.
• The agency would need limits on data sharing and rules on how long entries remain visible.
• Backers say the operational burden is manageable, pointing to existing DHS systems that track case outcomes.
• Critics stress the need for rapid correction mechanisms and protections against secondary use by private actors.

Today, the public can check detained noncitizens’ status through the ICE Detainee Locator: https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/index. That tool is not a record of people with final orders who are not detained and does not publish photographs, aliases, or last known location data. The proposed registry would be a major departure from that model and would bring immigration enforcement data into a more public-facing space.

Context: Enforcement Trends and Stakeholder Views

The bill aligns with a broader enforcement push under President Trump to reverse earlier border policies and increase deportations. Supporters say making final orders more visible would prevent cases like the Roberts matter from slipping through the cracks.

Analysis and perspectives:

• According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, supporters see the public list as a corrective to years of weak follow-through on removal orders.
• Opponents call it a step toward expanding surveillance of immigrant communities without clear benefits.
• Law enforcement groups and some state officials are likely to argue for robust search features so officers and public employers can cross-reference names and aliases quickly.
• Privacy and civil rights groups are expected to push for guardrails—notice to listed people, rapid appeal/correction pathways, and strict limits on secondary use of the data.

Practical Questions Committees Will Likely Consider

Congressional committees considering the bill are likely to focus on several practical questions:

1. Identity verification: How will DHS ensure the posted person is the same as the court record, especially with multiple aliases?
2. Case status changes: What happens when a final order is stayed, reopened, or vacated?
3. Corrections and appeals: Who can request a correction, and how fast must DHS act?
4. Scope and retroactivity: Will the registry apply only to new final orders, or will it include older cases?
5. Data retention and sharing: How long will entries remain visible, and what limits exist on secondary uses?

The bill text, as described by its sponsors, targets new final orders, which suggests the agency would not have to work backward through older cases. Even so, the number of new final orders in any year can be high, and accuracy checks would be critical.

Impact on Communities, Employers, and Families

For families and employers, the effect would be mixed:

• Some school districts, hospitals, and public agencies might use the registry as part of background checks—particularly for roles interacting with children or vulnerable adults.
• Immigrant families could face new pressure if a relative’s information appears publicly, potentially discouraging people from seeking legal help or reporting crimes.
• Supporters say public visibility will deter fraud and help locate individuals who ignore final orders.

Advocates fear that public exposure could lead to stigmatization, avoidable harms, and chilling effects on community cooperation with authorities.

Next Steps and Possible Outcomes

The bill’s path remains uncertain. Steps required before it could take effect:

• Clear its House committee(s)
• Pass both the House and the Senate
• Avoid amendments that blunt the central disclosure mandate
• If enacted, DHS would need time to design the system, write posting and correction rules, train staff, and communicate the registry’s purpose and limits to the public

It is important to note what the registry would and would not be:

• It would be tied specifically to the legal category of a final order of removal entered after enactment.
• It would not be a list of all noncitizens or a list of criminal convictions.

Closing Considerations

However the debate unfolds, the stakes are personal:

• For those with new final orders, online publication could shape daily life in lasting ways.
• For communities, the registry could become a tool some welcome and others reject.

Congress now faces a choice: press for visibility in the name of public safety, or hold the line to protect privacy and reduce risks of error and abuse.