FBI Hacked Signal Group Chats of NYC Immigration Activists

(NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, USA) The FBI hacked into a private, encrypted Signal group chat used by immigration activists running courtwatch efforts in New York City’s federal immigration courts, according to a joint FBI-NYPD report dated August 28, 2025. The report, which circulated among law enforcement agencies across the country, described the activists as “anarchist violent extremist actors” and quoted messages from the Signal group chats to warn police and federal agents about what it framed as possible threats linked to their courtroom monitoring.

What the courtwatch groups do

The activists used the secure messaging app to organize teams of volunteers who sit in on federal immigration court hearings in Manhattan at:

• 26 Federal Plaza
• 201 Varick Street
• 290 Broadway

These courtwatch groups say their goal is simple: to observe immigration judges, lawyers, and federal officers, and to make the process more transparent for immigrants and their families. Volunteers coordinated schedules, traded advice on how to enter courtrooms, and shared images and video clips of law enforcement officers and federal buildings.

How the FBI said it obtained the messages

The joint report did not describe breaking Signal’s encryption technology directly. Instead, it claimed the bureau had a “sensitive source with excellent access” inside the chat, allowing agents to read and collect messages from within the private group.

The report then used those messages to:

• Build a portrait of the courtwatch network
• Alert law enforcement agencies nationwide about the activists’ activities around New York City immigration courts

Important note: The FBI’s wording suggests the bureau obtained messages by reaching a person inside the chat rather than by technically defeating Signal’s encryption. Still, conversations participants believed were secure were included in an intelligence report shared nationwide.

Reactions from activists and public officials

The disclosure that the FBI accessed their Signal group chats was both a shock and, for some, an uneasy confirmation of long-held fears that federal agencies might treat their presence in courtrooms as a threat rather than a civic act.

Their efforts expanded earlier in 2025 after a January directive led to more ICE detentions of immigrants who appeared for routine hearings. Activists say those arrests inside or around courthouses made people more afraid to show up, even when they had strong cases for relief.

New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who took part in courtwatch activities himself, sharply criticized the surveillance after the report came to light. He stressed that:

• Watching public court hearings is legal, peaceful, and rooted in a long tradition of public oversight.
• Labeling observers as extremists “crosses a line” and risks chilling ordinary New Yorkers, including immigrants and U.S. citizens, who simply want to see what happens in immigration courtrooms.

Civil liberties advocates voiced similar worries, arguing the report shows how a tool meant for fighting violent threats was turned on people whose main activity was sitting quietly on benches and taking notes.

What activists actually did in the Signal group

Activists in the Signal group:

• Shared tips about courtroom access
• Recorded images and videos of officers and government buildings
• Coordinated volunteer schedules and logistics

They describe these efforts as basic documentation, not targeting individuals. For many volunteers, the point of courtwatch is to record patterns:

• Which judges move quickly
• How often hearings are postponed
• Whether immigrants have legal representation when they stand before a judge

Privacy and encryption implications

The surveillance raises questions about how much privacy people can expect when using encrypted messaging apps for immigration-related organizing. Signal markets itself as a secure platform, popular with journalists, lawyers, and activists.

The FBI’s claim that a “sensitive source with excellent access” passed along messages suggests the bureau bypassed encryption by reaching a person, not by breaking the software. That still means conversations participants believed were shielded from police review ended up inside an intelligence report shared across agencies.

Broader debate and context

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the case feeds into a broader debate about how law enforcement treats immigration support work, especially when it challenges or documents government actions. Courtwatch volunteers say they attend hearings to help ensure due process, a basic legal principle that includes the right to a fair hearing.

They contend that when ICE detains people who come to court for scheduled appearances, or when hearings move forward without lawyers, public observers can serve as an informal check by recording what they see and sharing it with community groups and local officials.

Official responses and unanswered questions

• The FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE all declined to comment on the report and the surveillance it described.
• The New York Police Department, listed as a partner in the joint document, distanced itself by saying the report was “not an NYPD document.”

This leaves open questions about:

• How the report was drafted
• Who approved the description of the activists
• Which agencies requested ongoing monitoring of the Signal group and its members

Impact on immigrants and volunteers

For immigrants whose futures hang on decisions made in Manhattan courtrooms, the revelations add another layer of worry. Many already fear that any contact with the system, even simply showing up for a scheduled hearing, could lead to detention.

Knowing that federal agents quietly watched the digital coordination behind courtwatch may deepen the sense that even peaceful support networks can draw law enforcement attention. Some advocates say this could discourage volunteers, making it harder to keep eyes on hearings where:

• Language barriers exist
• Legal help is limited
• Rules are complicated and feel distant to those affected

Legal context and open courts

Legal observers note that open courts are a core part of the U.S. justice system, and immigration courts—though run by the federal government—are no exception in principle.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review explains that immigration courts handle removal cases and other matters that decide whether noncitizens can remain in the country: https://www.justice.gov/eoir.

While some hearings can be closed for specific reasons, many remain open to the public. Courtwatch volunteers say they work within those rules, entering only when allowed and respecting courtroom decorum.

How labeling changes the frame

The report’s language, especially labeling activists as “anarchist violent extremist actors,” shows how quickly peaceful monitoring can be reframed when seen through an intelligence lens. Once placed in that category, even without charges or public evidence of planned violence, a group’s communications and movements may face far closer tracking.

For immigration activists already worn down by years of policy swings and court battles, this type of label feels like a warning that simple observation can be treated as a security threat—particularly when it centers on the treatment of immigrants in court.

Immediate effects and longer-term uncertainty

The long-term fallout remains unclear, but immediate effects include:

• A deep chill within New York’s courtwatch community
• Volunteers rethinking what they share online about attendance and locations
• Others insisting they will continue, arguing that walking away would make the system even less visible

For many immigrants and allies, the story that the FBI accessed courtwatch Signal group chats is another example of the risks that can follow when people use digital tools to watch the government, rather than the other way around.