Advocates Say Airlines Hide Deportation Flights, Hampering Accountability

(MESA, ARIZONA) Airlines that carry people on deportation flights are stepping up efforts to hide those operations from public view, according to advocacy groups and flight monitors. The shift, which accelerated in mid-2025, comes as deportation flights hit record levels this summer, with July alone logging more than 1,200 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) flights, including deportations and domestic transfers. Mesa’s Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport and Seattle’s Boeing Field rank among the busiest hubs.

La Resistencia, a Seattle-based group, reports tracking 59 flights at Boeing Field so far in 2025, up from 42 in 2024, even as data grows harder to see.

Increasing data suppression by carriers

Advocates say the surge in ICE activity under President Trump’s expanded enforcement push is colliding with a wave of data suppression by carriers. They point to a pattern of airlines obscuring flight details:

• Contractors using “dummy” call signs
• Blocking tail numbers
• Masking routes to keep flights off popular tracking sites such as FlightRadar24 and FlightAware

As of late August, groups describe this as the most aggressive suppression they’ve seen since organized monitoring began in 2020.

The obscurity is not theoretical. By July 2025, 40 of 94 aircraft tracked nationwide for deportations were blocked from public feeds. Many flights now show up as “not available” or disappear mid-route, forcing advocates, journalists, and families to piece together movements through airport spotting, open-source research, and community tip lines.

FlightRadar24 has acknowledged receiving a spike in blocking requests through the Federal Aviation Administration’s Limiting Aircraft Data Displayed program, known as LADD, for aircraft involved in ICE operations in recent months.

FAA LADD program — what it is and the debate

Under FAA’s LADD program, aircraft owners can request that their flight data be filtered from public display systems. The FAA says the tool is a privacy option available to all operators and is not tailored to deportation missions. Details on the program are posted on the official FAA LADD program page.

Advocates don’t dispute airlines’ legal access to LADD—but say its widespread use on deportation flights undermines public oversight of a major government action affecting lives across the United States 🇺🇸 and abroad.

• Proponents’ view:
  • LADD is a neutral privacy measure available to any aircraft owner (corporate jets, medical flights, etc.)
  • Some discretion for law enforcement operations can be justified for safety and security
• Critics’ view:
  • Using LADD broadly on mass removal flights erases accountability
  • It undermines litigation, congressional oversight, and independent reporting
  • It makes it harder to detect and respond to sudden or large-scale removals

“When flight paths and tail numbers vanish, watchdogs lose early warnings about mass removals and sudden country-specific operations.”

Carriers, tactics, and expanding capacity

Contract airlines flying ICE missions include GlobalX, Eastern Air Express, and Avelo Airlines. According to flight monitors, these carriers are not only turning on LADD but also adopting non-standard call signs—straying from identifiers like GlobalX’s typical “GXA”—to dodge simple keyword searches.

The administration has also grown capacity by adding military aircraft and new commercial partners. Avelo began deportation flights from Mesa in spring 2025, further expanding lift from Arizona, where Phoenix-area airports have become repeat departure points.

Key data points

• At least 5,962 deportation flights took place from January through July 2025 — a 41% increase over the same period in 2024.
• In Phoenix, monitors counted 329 domestic ICE flights in 2025.
• ICE reported 271,484 removals in FY2024, a 90.4% jump over FY2023.

Human Rights First, which now houses the ICE Flight Monitor project developed by researcher Tom Cartwright, says tracking has helped highlight trends and alert communities when charter planes appear at smaller airports with little notice.

Transparency, oversight, and the stakes for the public

Advocates warn that growing secrecy threatens tools that support litigation, congressional oversight, and independent reporting. When flight paths and tail numbers vanish, watchdogs lose early warnings about mass removals and country-specific operations.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the data gathered by flight monitors has underpinned court filings and public records requests that revealed the scope and timing of removals, including late-night flights and rapid turnarounds to countries experiencing unrest.

Human Rights First emphasizes that flight tracking is often the first sign that a country docket is moving—for example, a cluster of aircraft turning toward West Africa or the Caribbean. Tom Cartwright argues the data has been central to exposing both scale and secrecy. Uzra Zeya, the group’s CEO, has called for continued and expanded efforts to bring visibility to ICE’s operations.

La Resistencia accuses airlines of “hiding” their role and urges the public to pressure both carriers and the government to restore transparency.

ICE contracts are typically brokered by CSI Aviation, which arranges charters with commercial carriers. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not publicly commented on the wave of data-blocking since mid-2025, even as removals rise and flight activity spreads to new airports. The FAA defends LADD as a neutral privacy measure open to any aircraft owner.

Community impact and the new playbook for tracking

On the ground, hidden flight data isn’t just a technical issue—it changes how families and communities brace for deportations. Hotline operators say reduced visibility heightens fear and confusion, especially when ICE sweeps move quickly.

Advocacy groups report enforcement has expanded into places once considered off-limits, such as schools and churches, amplifying anxiety. When a charter appears with no public record, families often only learn if a spouse or parent is aboard after takeoff.

As a result, activists are adapting. Their playbook now leans on:

1. Coordinated airport observation, including spotting teams near remote stands where charters often park.
2. Open-source intelligence, such as matching ground photos with known fleet liveries and interiors.
3. Tip networks among attorneys, families, and community groups to confirm manifests and destinations.
4. Scrutinizing unusual patterns, like a plane landing with trackers off and leaving minutes later under a different call sign.

Advocates stress that none of this replaces public data. It’s slower, more labor-intensive, and can’t capture the full picture of who is on board or whether vulnerable people—such as asylum seekers or those with medical issues—are being flown out without adequate review.

Even when a plane is identified, obscured tail numbers and swapped call signs make it harder to link a flight to an airline and hold corporate partners to account.

How suppression technically works

• Airlines file LADD requests with the FAA to filter flight data from public feeds.
• Carriers assign “dummy” or non-standard call signs to deportation flights to avoid obvious searches.
• Tail numbers and routing details are withheld or masked, leaving “not available” markers in tracking tools.

Mesa features in this new map of hidden movement. Spotters describe charters loading pre-dawn, with minimal ground crew, and rapid departures that leave little time for legal checks or family contact. For people in detention, that can mean a bewildering exit: a day that begins in Arizona and ends that night at a faraway airport, with community support struggling to keep pace.

Potential future shifts and implications

Administration officials have explored options that could reduce visibility further. Reports indicate the government is considering having ICE acquire its own aircraft fleet. If that happens, monitors warn, data could be controlled at the source, narrowing the window into operations even more.

Policy shifts could also alter routes and cadence, moving traffic to airports where observation is harder.

For now, flight monitors continue to piece together the puzzle. La Resistencia’s tally at Boeing Field—59 flights in 2025—shows that consistent, local surveillance can still document heavy activity. But the overall trend points in one direction: more flights, less data. The result is a system where the public sees less even as it affects more people.

The debate in brief

• Supporters of the current approach:
  • Argue deportation flights are law enforcement operations
  • Say crew, passenger, and airport safety justify some discretion
  • Emphasize aircraft-owner privacy is a longstanding norm
• Critics:
  • Say secrecy around mass removals is different from protecting a corporate jet itinerary
  • Claim it erases accountability for a life-changing government action
  • Call for limits on how and when LADD is used for mass enforcement flights

Both sides point to the FAA’s neutral role; the disagreement centers on how—and how widely—LADD should be applied.

What civil society is doing now

Reporters and civil society are responding with human labor and local eyes:

• Attorneys file emergency motions when surprise charters appear.
• Community groups build rosters to check on missing detainees.
• Volunteers keep watch at known stands and taxiways.
• Researchers stitch fragmentary feeds into usable alerts.

It’s an uneasy balance: as airlines’ obscuring tactics grow, so does the need for independent verification, even if it means a longer night on the tarmac.

Behind the numbers are people whose cases are complex and often still in motion. When the planes are hard to see, it becomes harder to know whether legal protections were applied fairly, whether families were notified, or whether a person with a viable claim was placed on a flight anyway.

This debate is more than technical. It’s about whether the public can watch what the government does in its name—and whether those facing removal have even a brief chance to be seen before the door closes.