California Lawmakers Move to Audit Joint Clearinghouse Amid Surveillance Concerns
In a significant decision this week, California lawmakers voted to audit the operations of the Joint Clearinghouse, a facility where federal, state, and local agencies share sensitive information. The vote was driven by concerns over potential authoritarianism and invasive surveillance practices.
The Joint Committee on Legislative Audit, comprising 14 members from both chambers of the California legislature, made the decision on a party-line vote. Out of the committee, nine members supported the audit, one opposed, and four abstained. The audit will be conducted by State Auditor Grant Parks.
Several advocacy organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, urged lawmakers to initiate this audit due to ongoing allegations of misconduct at the facility known as the Fusion Center. Instances have emerged where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) allegedly requested La Habra police to conduct searches at the Orange County Fusion Center, raising serious questions about misuse of power. Furthermore, reports indicate that San Francisco police may have bypassed local bans on facial recognition technology by leveraging resources from these fusion centers.
Investigations by CalMatters have uncovered violations of state law, highlighting instances where local law enforcement agencies shared license plate information with ICE and Border Patrol. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has warned multiple local agencies of their breaches of a state law prohibiting such activities, which has been in effect since 2024. The city of El Cajon has also come under scrutiny for similar infractions.
The audit intends to gather crucial information on three California fusion centers, including details on legal violations, disciplinary actions taken in the last decade, the personnel stationed at these centers, partnerships with private organizations, and oversight from state or local authorities ensuring compliance with laws.
Senator Sabrina Cervantes of Riverside, who championed the audit, believes the fusion center’s operations violate laws that restrict cooperation with federal immigration law enforcement. She pointed to a report from the 2024 Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, which claims that California’s fusion centers regularly collaborate with ICE. Cervantes emphasized the need for transparency, stating that 40 million Californians deserve to know whether these centers are fulfilling their intended role in counterterrorism or functioning as unaccountable surveillance networks.
California has five fusion centers located in San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego, established post-September 11, 2001, with a mix of federal funding and local law enforcement resources. Efforts to limit or dismantle fusion center operations have surfaced in various states, including Maine and Massachusetts, raising lasting concerns about their effectiveness and implications for civil liberties.
All Republican committee members opposed the audit, with one member labeling it a “political witch hunt” prioritizing the interests of immigrants over national security. In contrast, former FBI agent Mike German argued that effective national security relies on transparent operations of these centers, emphasizing the importance of public scrutiny, especially as federal law enforcement practices come under increasing scrutiny.
A study co-authored by German at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice in 2022 revealed a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of fusion centers in counterterrorism efforts. The findings indicated a troubling trend of mischaracterizing activists on various social issues as violent extremists. A report from 2012 also suggested that support for fusion centers did little to enhance federal counterterrorism intelligence, while jeopardizing the privacy rights of American citizens.
Representatives from California’s fusion centers did not respond to the audit’s announcement.
