“ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight” Video and Related Policies

Jordan Lassiter
Jordan@Lassiter.eu
February 19, 2025

FOIA Officer
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Office of the Chief FOIA Officer
245 Murray Lane SW
STOP-0655
Washington, D.C. 20528-0655

Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request – DHS Records Pertaining to “ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight” Video and Related Policies

DISCLAIMER:

Please read this FOIA request carefully and abide by all requested points. All communications regarding this request are public and will be disclosed as appropriate.

Dear FOIA Officer,

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request access to the following records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding the “ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight” video that was initially posted by the White House on February 18, 2025 (Original Post https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1891922058415603980) and later reposted by ICE on February 19, 2025, at 5:07 PM ET (ICE Post https://x.com/ICEgov/status/1892335284596961453).

For preservation purposes, I have archived the post at http://archive.today/p8Gn3.

To ensure accuracy, this request explicitly refers to ASMR as defined within digital media trends, including whispering, soft sounds, tapping, and other sensory-based auditory techniques, as commonly used in YouTube and social media content.

1. DHS Authorization, Oversight, and Coordination on the Video

Requested Records:
• All communications (emails, memos, texts, meeting notes, official directives) involving DHS leadership, ICE, or other agencies regarding:
• Approval, production, and distribution of the “ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight” video.
• Meetings between DHS, the White House, and ICE on using ASMR techniques in public messaging.
• Any directives from DHS to ICE on the production and release of the video.
• Policy discussions on the use of ASMR techniques in official government messaging.

Legal Basis:
• Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 895 F.3d 770 (D.C. Cir. 2018) – Agencies must disclose internal communications unless they fall within specific FOIA exemptions.
• American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) – Public interest outweighs agency confidentiality when records shed light on government actions.

2. DHS Budget, Contracts, and Expenditures Related to the Video

Requested Records:
• Detailed records of funding allocations, contracts, invoices, and budget approvals related to:
• The production, editing, and distribution of the video.
• Third-party contractors, PR firms, or external consultants involved.
• DHS grants or financial contributions to ICE for immigration-related public messaging campaigns.
• Any advertising or promotional costs related to social media or traditional media distribution.

Legal Basis:
• Nat’l Inst. of Military Justice v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 512 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir. 2008) – Budget records related to public initiatives are subject to disclosure under FOIA.
• Campaign Legal Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 34 F.4th 14 (D.C. Cir. 2022) – Government agencies must disclose funding records related to public policy.

3. DHS’s Use of ASMR and Sensory-Based Messaging in Public Communications

Requested Records:
• All DHS policies, memos, emails, or internal reports discussing:
• The use of ASMR techniques in government public relations, media production, or behavioral influence strategies.
• Meetings, studies, or consultations evaluating the psychological effects of ASMR in public messaging.
• Any prior use of ASMR techniques in DHS campaigns related to public engagement.
• Any training materials or directives on digital sensory messaging within DHS or its sub-agencies.

Legal Basis:
• Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 892 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2018) – DHS must disclose policy materials related to public messaging strategies unless classified.

4. Internal and External Reactions to the Video’s Release

Requested Records:
• Internal DHS staff emails, memos, and meeting notes discussing:
• Reactions to public criticism and media coverage of the video.
• Legal and ethical concerns raised internally about the use of ASMR techniques in a deportation video.
• Guidance or talking points provided to DHS officials regarding public response strategies.
• Coordination between DHS and ICE on media relations and public affairs management.

Legal Basis:
• New York Times Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 756 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2014) – Government agencies must disclose records explaining decision-making on publicly contested policies.

5. DHS’s Relationship with Social Media Platforms Regarding Content Moderation

Requested Records:
• All official communications between DHS and social media platforms (X, Facebook, YouTube, etc.) regarding:
• Promotion, boosting, or algorithmic amplification of deportation-related content.
• Requests to suppress, remove, or de-prioritize negative responses to the video.
• DHS participation in meetings or agreements with platform executives regarding content strategy.

Legal Basis:
• Center for Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 982 F.3d 668 (D.C. Cir. 2020) – Government must disclose communications with private entities regarding digital messaging.

Preservation of Records

I formally request that DHS take all necessary measures to prevent destruction or alteration of any responsive records, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. § 3106 and 5 U.S.C. § 552.

Request for Expedited Processing

I request expedited processing under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) due to the high public interest and controversy surrounding this video. The public has a right to know how DHS is using ASMR techniques, taxpayer funds, and behavioral influence tactics in immigration messaging.

Request for Fee Waiver

I request a waiver of all fees under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) as disclosure of these records is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to government transparency.

Conclusion

If this request is denied in whole or in part, please justify all deletions by referencing the specific FOIA exemptions under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). All segregable portions of otherwise exempt material must be released.

Please confirm receipt of this request and provide an estimated timeline for processing. If clarifications are needed, you may contact me at Jordan@Lassiter.eu.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter
Jordan@Lassiter.eu

Dear FOIA Appeals Officer,

I am submitting this appeal regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to transfer my FOIA request (2025-HQFO-02522) to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without conducting a search for records at DHS Headquarters. I respectfully request that DHS reinstate my request, conduct a proper search for responsive records within DHS Headquarters, and process my request accordingly.

Grounds for Appeal
DHS Improperly Transferred the Request Without Conducting a Search
Under FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)), agencies are required to conduct a reasonable search in locations where responsive records are likely to exist. DHS’s summary determination that ICE is the proper custodian of the records, without first conducting a search within DHS Headquarters, is inconsistent with case law that requires agencies to make good-faith efforts to locate responsive documents.

McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1983) – Agencies must conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180, 185 (D.C. Cir. 2013) – An agency cannot avoid its obligation to process records within its custody simply by referring the request to another agency.
DHS Likely Possesses Responsive Records
My request seeks records related to high-level DHS policy decisions, inter-agency coordination, and directives issued by DHS leadership regarding the ASMR deportation video. Given the nature of these records, it is reasonable to conclude that DHS Headquarters maintains relevant communications, policies, and directives separate from ICE.

DHS leadership likely communicated with ICE and other agencies regarding the production, oversight, and approval of the ASMR deportation video.
Policy discussions regarding sensory-based messaging techniques in public communications would likely exist at DHS Headquarters, not just ICE.
Budget allocations, contract approvals, and funding records related to the video’s production may be maintained at DHS Headquarters.
By transferring the request without conducting a proper search, DHS has improperly limited the scope of my request and prevented access to relevant records.

Legal Remedies and Requested Action
FOIA requires that an agency process records in its possession, regardless of whether another agency may also have responsive documents. DHS’s failure to search its own records before transferring the request constitutes an improper withholding of records, as recognized in:

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 895 F.3d 770, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2018) – Agencies cannot impose additional administrative burdens or transfer requests without proper justification.
Nat’l Sec. Counselors v. CIA, 969 F.3d 406, 410 (D.C. Cir. 2020) – An agency must process a request for records within its control and cannot shift responsibility to another agency without confirming it lacks responsive documents.
Requested Relief
I respectfully request the following actions:

Reinstate my FOIA request (2025-HQFO-02522) at DHS Headquarters.
Conduct a thorough search within DHS Headquarters for responsive records, including but not limited to:
DHS leadership communications and directives.
Budgetary, contractual, and funding records related to the ASMR deportation video.
Policy discussions on ASMR and sensory-based messaging in government communication.
Provide a written response confirming that DHS has conducted a search and either:
Begin processing responsive records for release, or
Provide a justification under FOIA exemptions if no records are released.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Please confirm receipt of this appeal and provide an estimated timeframe for response. Should you require any further clarification, I am happy to provide additional details.

Best regards,
Jordan Lassiter
Email: Jordan@lassiter.eu