In addition to the obvious problems of the US government illegally firing one family-member solely to punish a different family-member's constitutionally-protected free-speech... I'd also highlight these aren't even the same part of the federal government. ICE is under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whereas she is/was employed as a forensic accountant at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
To make an throw-back reference, this like the DOJ firing one of their forensic accountants just because her spouse gave out t-shirts at a convention with DeCSS source code on them and pissed off the Copyright Office.
mingus88 · 5h ago
You sound surprised? The administration has been purging non-loyalists since January.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they start firing anyone who even downloaded the app.
perihelions · 5h ago
The FBI's literally putting employees under polygraphs to purge non-MAGA loyalists.
> "Some senior officials who have taken the test have been asked whether they said anything negative about the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel."
seanw444 · 5h ago
There's a lot of "MAGA loyalists" who would fail that test too.
bdangubic · 5h ago
all of them :)
mathiaspoint · 5h ago
I was (at least up until the other week) extremely pro MAGA and did not like Patel.
foobarchu · 5h ago
I don't think anyone is surprised about this, but it's still important to make a big stink. As soon as we go quiet and stop caring, they win.
threatofrain · 2h ago
The DOJ's position is that she is threatening the lives of federal agents.
drivingmenuts · 5h ago
The oath says "Support and Defend the Constitution", not "Support and Defend the Con". I really hope she can sue them for a ridiculous amount of damages.
readthenotes1 · 5h ago
Not a different person
"discovered she has a sizable interest in All U Chart, Inc., the company that holds the IP for ICEBlock"
I'm not sure what hen's employee contract reads.
There are some limitations on US government employees engaging in political action though (Hatch act).
Perhaps hen sent a text relating to All U during work hours?
heyoni · 5h ago
Since when is dissemination of publicly facing information considered political action under the Hatch Act? The latter requires the person to use their influence or be on duty for it to count. The raids being reported by the app aren’t using insider information, they’re in progress and out in the open.
This situation is pretty clear cut. The administration isn’t being coy about purging anyone they think might be less than blindly loyal.
dragonwriter · 1h ago
> There are some limitations on US government employees engaging in political action though (Hatch act).
In both terms, the Trump Administration has been full of top-to-bottom, flagrant violations off the Hatch Act by loyalists.
shkkmo · 5h ago
AFAIK, ownership interest in a company doesn't violate any of the Hatch restrictions, even on the "further restricted" category of employees. So unless she took specific political actions while on the job, using her authority, or using federal resources, this is not a Hatch violation.
According to this article, she self-reported to the DOJ ("Feinstein says that she took it upon herself to inform the DOJ of her relationship with Aaron after the backlash first kicked off more than three weeks ago.”). The people from the DOJ who contacted her initially were looking into ethical issues ("Within a week, she said that she was then contacted by the Office of the U.S. Trustee, which said it was reaching out on behalf of an ethics committee.”).
She told the investigators that she didn’t have anything much to do with the app ("They asked me about my relationship to the ICEBlock App,” she said. “And I informed them in so many words that I really didn’t have any relationship or involvement in the app, I was married to the creator.”) However, she also admits to the journalist that she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company.
The Newsweek article on HN seems to have a lot less info than this one, though both have pretty inflammatory headlines.
Aurornis · 5h ago
> However, she also admits to the journalist that she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company.
That’s a lot more than a footnote. If the app development company owned the app and she had ownership in the app development company, there’s no way to argue she didn’t have an interest in the app.
Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer and continue to keep their job. You have to be divested from one or the other. Due to the marriage, there likely any way to divest from the app unless her husband also divested from it. Even then, the damage was done.
dboreham · 5h ago
> Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer
Really? So if my wife works for Google and I work for Facebook, she has to get me to quit Facebook? Or if my wife works for Google and I found a start up making a search app, then she has to get me to wind up my start up?
Spooky23 · 5h ago
If you work for the government you have to disclose outside activity.
This administration sucks, but being a shareholder isn’t the same as your spouse just working on a project. She should have resigned a long time ago.
BobaFloutist · 2h ago
So anyone with S&P 500 index funds in their retirement account can never work for any company you could consider a competitor to any of the 500?
Spooky23 · 2h ago
Some employees may have contracts that have ethical clauses for outside activity.
The person in this case worked for the US Government, and is subject to ethics laws and agency policy.
In most cases, a mutual fund isn’t an ethical issue for most roles - although in a more normal time some elected officials would put investments in blind trusts to ensure there wasn’t an appearance of corruption.
Owning a portion of a private company run by your spouse whose principal activity is directly opposed to those to whom you serve at the pleasure of is going to be a problem. If you fail to report it, you’re going to get fired.
1234letshaveatw · 5h ago
More like - if your wife works for Facebook and also owns a slice of twitter. You are really reaching here
FireBeyond · 4h ago
Guess I better divest my tech stocks then!
Because I work for a tech company, and some of the stocks I own could, tangentially or otherwise, be competitors to my employer.
golergka · 5h ago
> she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company
Let's suppose this means she is directly linked to this anti-ICE app, profits from it (if it even has any revenue?) and is interested in the apps success. Does it mean that she has ethical conflict with her DOJ position?
singleshot_ · 5h ago
MPRE 1.11(a)(2) would suggest “no” if she worked on matters related to the US Trustee at DOJ and not immigration related matters.
sleight42 · 3h ago
Flagged. Of course. It's technology meets politics and it's anti-alt-right so of course someone has to flag it.
No comments yet
WarOnPrivacy · 5h ago
ICE Speak:
- ICEBlock is an app that illegal aliens use to evade capture
- while endangering the lives of ICE officers
- by disclosing their location.
- This DOJ will not tolerate threats against law enforcement
or law enforcement officers."
Reality speak:
- ICEBlock is an app used by citizens who reasonably want to
1) be aware of what their government does
2) provide the only known oversight of ICE agents
3) avoid areas where risky, hostile militaristic patrols operate
- The DOJ will not tolerate citizen empowerment that it does not
expressly approve of.
- This DOJ will disingenuously reframe any attempt at oversight
of LEO as "a threat to law enforcement officers" and will freely
deploy government resources as revenge against those citizens.
dathinab · 5h ago
btw. this
> ICEBlock is an app that illegal aliens use to evade capture
is highly dehumanizing language you normally find only and autocratic regimes ruled by force and despotism instead of law
if you read that in you country and it's not a exception but the now norm you alarm bells should ring in overdrive
historically speaking language like this has pretty reliably an indicator of a country going to commit mass murder (lets hope it doesn't come to this)
vorpalhex · 3h ago
I'm a US citizen.
If I illegally enter Japan or Mexico, am I not committing a crime? I would expect to (and both of these countries would) be arrested and returned to the US, usually after being fined and not allowed re-entry.
An Alien is the correct and proper name for a non-resident.
Someone who illegally enters a country is an Illegal Alien.
Are Japan and Mexico on the verge of committing mass murder?
baggy_trough · 4h ago
That is quite an overreaction. The language is normal.
NoMoreNicksLeft · 4h ago
What's "reliable indicator" here? That it happened once?
>if you read that in you country and it's not a exception but the now norm
The term "illegal alien" has been the norm in the United States my entire life and I'm 51. Only recently has it started to not become the norm, because the youngest generations have unbridled enthusiasm for the euphemism treadmill, so first they became "undocumented", and then lately differently-citizenated or whatever.
zb3 · 5h ago
So what about "ICEBlock is an app that people being in the US illegally use to evade capture"?
jigguit · 2h ago
If tens of millions of foreigners have illegally entered your lands and it's the now norm you alarm bells should ring in overdrive.
This is the law. It is finally being enforced. Force is justified.
NoMoreNicksLeft · 5h ago
>Reality speak:
Reality is more than large enough for it to both be used my "citizens who reasonably want to provide oversight" and be used by criminals who will use it to evade capture and target ICE agents. It is even reasonable for someone who works for that agency to wonder if such citizen activism might not be turned (in the future, I have not heard of specific incidents so far) to threats against its agents.
If there were a SWAT raid in progress, with officers sneaking up behind a building blaring "Oh no, the popo's here!" on a loudspeaker might well be judged to put their lives at risk. Not only would I expect it to lead to criminal charges (and past that, conviction), I don't much imagine anyone here would argue that the punishment was unwarranted. This doesn't change just because you have a different opinion about illegal immigration than a bank hostage situation or illicit meth factories.
cycomanic · 4h ago
> Reality is more than large enough for it to both be used my "citizens who reasonably want to provide oversight" and be used by criminals who will use it to evade capture and target ICE agents. It is even reasonable for someone who works for that agency to wonder if such citizen activism might not be turned (in the future, I have not heard of specific incidents so far) to threats against its agents.
That's a pretty broad brush, all sorts of free speech could (and is) used by criminals to evade capture or target law enforcement agents. Are you proposing that we should ban phone and chat applications?
More specifically aren't there apps in the US that report the location of speed cameras, breath testing stops etc? I thought I even heard this being broadcasted on the radio. Are you arguing this is illegal?
BonoboIO · 3h ago
I found this article via https://hn.algolia.com/ and immediately knew, that I would see the flagged mark.
Is this because readers don’t want to be reminded how absurd the world outside has become?
pstuart · 6h ago
Where all all the "Free Speech Absolutists" on this?
dathinab · 5h ago
you mean the "I must have the right to harass people online" people?
The "someone fact checking my political propaganda is not okay" people?
Or like the "objective facts are not neutral because they they imply I'm probably fascist when spreading fascist leaning propaganda" people?
pstuart · 5h ago
The same people downvoting my comment and supporting comments, yes.
int_19h · 4h ago
The actual free speech absolutists never supported Trump.
readthenotes1 · 5h ago
The Hatch Act specifically prohibits some of that for federal employees.
It will be interesting to see if hen violated it during the lawsuit
cmiles74 · 5h ago
If this was a Hatch Act violation, I cannot imagine why the DOJ would not be shouting it from the rooftops.
tootie · 5h ago
Husband wasn't endorsing candidates. Hatch Act does not forbid activism. Clarence Thomas' wife was very active in conservative causes including explicit support for Trump's candidacy and the Jan 6 insurrection. No charges have ever been filed against her or Justice Thomas.
Mobil1 · 6h ago
She owns half of the company is why she was fired!
1659447091 · 5h ago
She is married to the owner of the company, it's (most likely) communal property anyway
threatofrain · 1h ago
The DOJ goes further than that. They believe she was threatening the lives of their officers.
dboreham · 5h ago
Anyone married owns a 1/2 interest of whatever their spouse is engaged in for business (modulo pre-nups and what not).
0xy · 5h ago
Nonsense. She's a shareholder personally. This isn't theoretical.
wand3r · 6h ago
Happy for her. She can retire early with an excellent settlement or get another job she is passionate about without worrying about money. It's pretty despicable, but I think in the end it will turn out for the better.
lapetitejort · 5h ago
This administration has fired thousands of workers without cause with almost no legal ramifications. What is special about this case?
tootie · 5h ago
And the SC has been exceedingly lenient in allowing them.
arunabha · 7h ago
From the article
The DOJ told Newsweek: "For several weeks, the Department of Justice inquired into this former employee's activities and discovered she has a sizable interest in All U Chart, Inc., the company that holds the IP for ICEBlock. ICEBlock is an app that illegal aliens use to evade capture while endangering the lives of ICE officers by disclosing their location. This DOJ will not tolerate threats against law enforcement or law enforcement officers."
toomuchtodo · 6h ago
Identifying and catalog law enforcement actors are not threats. Certainly, they feel threatened by the threat of current or future accountability, but that is their feeling.
I imagine they’ll feel even worse when the war crimes trials start. Ah, well.
amanaplanacanal · 6h ago
Two comments about this bunch of BS:
1. I would guess that ICE agent isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous occupations in the US.
2. If knowing the location of law enforcement endangers their lives, why do the great majority of law enforcement officers wear distinctive uniforms and drive around in clearly marked vehicles?
defrost · 2h ago
The "massive (percentage) increase" in assaults on ICE officers is a good example of How to Lie with Statistics * (1954, still a good book, worth a read).
For comment, see:
We now know that an “830% increase” is an increase from 10 assaults in 6 months to 93 assaults in 6 months, at a time when DHS has *massively* increased at-large arrests and officers deployed in the community.
For comparison, NYPD is averaging 194 assaults on officers per MONTH.
from:
DHS Still Pretending 15 Assaults A Month Is Evidence Of Widespread Violence Against ICE Officers
To make an throw-back reference, this like the DOJ firing one of their forensic accountants just because her spouse gave out t-shirts at a convention with DeCSS source code on them and pissed off the Copyright Office.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they start firing anyone who even downloaded the app.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/us/politics/fbi-polygraph...
> "Some senior officials who have taken the test have been asked whether they said anything negative about the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel."
"discovered she has a sizable interest in All U Chart, Inc., the company that holds the IP for ICEBlock"
I'm not sure what hen's employee contract reads.
There are some limitations on US government employees engaging in political action though (Hatch act).
Perhaps hen sent a text relating to All U during work hours?
This situation is pretty clear cut. The administration isn’t being coy about purging anyone they think might be less than blindly loyal.
In both terms, the Trump Administration has been full of top-to-bottom, flagrant violations off the Hatch Act by loyalists.
According to this article, she self-reported to the DOJ ("Feinstein says that she took it upon herself to inform the DOJ of her relationship with Aaron after the backlash first kicked off more than three weeks ago.”). The people from the DOJ who contacted her initially were looking into ethical issues ("Within a week, she said that she was then contacted by the Office of the U.S. Trustee, which said it was reaching out on behalf of an ethics committee.”).
She told the investigators that she didn’t have anything much to do with the app ("They asked me about my relationship to the ICEBlock App,” she said. “And I informed them in so many words that I really didn’t have any relationship or involvement in the app, I was married to the creator.”) However, she also admits to the journalist that she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company.
The Newsweek article on HN seems to have a lot less info than this one, though both have pretty inflammatory headlines.
That’s a lot more than a footnote. If the app development company owned the app and she had ownership in the app development company, there’s no way to argue she didn’t have an interest in the app.
Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer and continue to keep their job. You have to be divested from one or the other. Due to the marriage, there likely any way to divest from the app unless her husband also divested from it. Even then, the damage was done.
Really? So if my wife works for Google and I work for Facebook, she has to get me to quit Facebook? Or if my wife works for Google and I found a start up making a search app, then she has to get me to wind up my start up?
This administration sucks, but being a shareholder isn’t the same as your spouse just working on a project. She should have resigned a long time ago.
The person in this case worked for the US Government, and is subject to ethics laws and agency policy.
In most cases, a mutual fund isn’t an ethical issue for most roles - although in a more normal time some elected officials would put investments in blind trusts to ensure there wasn’t an appearance of corruption.
Owning a portion of a private company run by your spouse whose principal activity is directly opposed to those to whom you serve at the pleasure of is going to be a problem. If you fail to report it, you’re going to get fired.
Because I work for a tech company, and some of the stocks I own could, tangentially or otherwise, be competitors to my employer.
Let's suppose this means she is directly linked to this anti-ICE app, profits from it (if it even has any revenue?) and is interested in the apps success. Does it mean that she has ethical conflict with her DOJ position?
No comments yet
> ICEBlock is an app that illegal aliens use to evade capture
is highly dehumanizing language you normally find only and autocratic regimes ruled by force and despotism instead of law
if you read that in you country and it's not a exception but the now norm you alarm bells should ring in overdrive
historically speaking language like this has pretty reliably an indicator of a country going to commit mass murder (lets hope it doesn't come to this)
If I illegally enter Japan or Mexico, am I not committing a crime? I would expect to (and both of these countries would) be arrested and returned to the US, usually after being fined and not allowed re-entry.
An Alien is the correct and proper name for a non-resident.
Someone who illegally enters a country is an Illegal Alien.
Are Japan and Mexico on the verge of committing mass murder?
>if you read that in you country and it's not a exception but the now norm
The term "illegal alien" has been the norm in the United States my entire life and I'm 51. Only recently has it started to not become the norm, because the youngest generations have unbridled enthusiasm for the euphemism treadmill, so first they became "undocumented", and then lately differently-citizenated or whatever.
This is the law. It is finally being enforced. Force is justified.
Reality is more than large enough for it to both be used my "citizens who reasonably want to provide oversight" and be used by criminals who will use it to evade capture and target ICE agents. It is even reasonable for someone who works for that agency to wonder if such citizen activism might not be turned (in the future, I have not heard of specific incidents so far) to threats against its agents.
If there were a SWAT raid in progress, with officers sneaking up behind a building blaring "Oh no, the popo's here!" on a loudspeaker might well be judged to put their lives at risk. Not only would I expect it to lead to criminal charges (and past that, conviction), I don't much imagine anyone here would argue that the punishment was unwarranted. This doesn't change just because you have a different opinion about illegal immigration than a bank hostage situation or illicit meth factories.
That's a pretty broad brush, all sorts of free speech could (and is) used by criminals to evade capture or target law enforcement agents. Are you proposing that we should ban phone and chat applications?
More specifically aren't there apps in the US that report the location of speed cameras, breath testing stops etc? I thought I even heard this being broadcasted on the radio. Are you arguing this is illegal?
Is this because readers don’t want to be reminded how absurd the world outside has become?
The "someone fact checking my political propaganda is not okay" people?
Or like the "objective facts are not neutral because they they imply I'm probably fascist when spreading fascist leaning propaganda" people?
It will be interesting to see if hen violated it during the lawsuit
The DOJ told Newsweek: "For several weeks, the Department of Justice inquired into this former employee's activities and discovered she has a sizable interest in All U Chart, Inc., the company that holds the IP for ICEBlock. ICEBlock is an app that illegal aliens use to evade capture while endangering the lives of ICE officers by disclosing their location. This DOJ will not tolerate threats against law enforcement or law enforcement officers."
https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-sections/right-to-r...
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police
1. I would guess that ICE agent isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous occupations in the US.
2. If knowing the location of law enforcement endangers their lives, why do the great majority of law enforcement officers wear distinctive uniforms and drive around in clearly marked vehicles?
For comment, see:
from:DHS Still Pretending 15 Assaults A Month Is Evidence Of Widespread Violence Against ICE Officers
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/23/dhs-still-pretending-15-...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics