WASHINGTON, D.C. — A bipartisan proposal intended to combat organized retail crime is drawing increasing criticism from civil liberties advocates, who argue the legislation extends far beyond addressing theft and instead would significantly expand the Department of Homeland Security’s surveillance authority and its role in domestic law enforcement.
The Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, known as CORCA, passed the U.S. House with broad bipartisan support, including votes from Northern California Democratic Reps. Mike Thompson and John Garamendi, alongside 143 other House Democrats.
Supporters say the measure gives law enforcement additional tools to dismantle organized retail theft rings, while critics contend the legislation creates new surveillance infrastructure, broadens data-sharing between government agencies and private corporations, and strengthens the role of ICE at a time when many Democrats have pledged greater oversight of the agency.
The debate has intensified following reports that Senate sponsors are exploring attaching the legislation to the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual defense measure that is widely considered must-pass legislation.
Aiden Cotter, a federal policy expert who has criticized the legislation and recently authored an opinion article in The Hill, said the title of the bill masks provisions that substantially expand DHS authority.
“What’s really interesting about CORCA, you read the title and what it supposedly stands for is it’s supposed to be this bill that’s about addressing organized retail crime,” Cotter said during an interview with the Vanguard. “And that’s what I expected the bill to be until I really dug in and got into the weeds and started really looking through the legislation and was really frankly pretty surprised when we started drilling in to see that the reality of what the legislation does, which is scary in this particular moment with this administration, is really empowers and expands DHS and ICE in a multitude of ways.”
According to a policy memorandum prepared by the Vera Institute of Justice, the legislation would establish a new intelligence center within DHS focused on organized retail crime while creating new mechanisms for sharing information among federal, state and local agencies and private-sector partners. The organization argues the proposal lacks meaningful privacy protections, transparency requirements or civil liberties safeguards.
The Vera memorandum states that the legislation “would significantly expand the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) role in domestic law enforcement—including more access to Americans’ data” while positioning DHS “as a central intelligence hub with expanded access to sensitive data from government and private-sector sources.”
Cotter said one of the most troubling aspects of the legislation is that it creates a new intelligence center whose director would be selected by ICE leadership.
“So what CORCA would do is create a new intelligence hub and DHS would essentially be at the center of that,” Cotter said. “It literally creates a center and the director of the center would be handpicked and appointed by the director of ICE. So that obviously is concerning to us and to a lot of our organizations that we work with considering everything we have seen from ICE under this administration.”
He also raised concerns about expanded information sharing.
“The other thing that it does that’s equally concerning is it essentially sets up these abilities for DHS and ICE to exchange information with state and local law enforcement, but probably more concerningly also with private corporations,” Cotter said. “It allows for the disclosure of information that would otherwise be deemed confidential and protected under federal law if the director of that center, so again, the director who’s been handpicked by the director of ICE deems it what they, and this is just quoting, operationally necessary, something that is never defined in the statute.”
The Vera analysis similarly argues the bill authorizes DHS to establish a secure information-sharing system among government agencies and private companies while permitting disclosure of otherwise confidential information when considered operationally necessary. The organization says the proposal contains no privacy standards governing collection, retention or deletion of personally identifiable information and provides no process for individuals to review or challenge records maintained about them.
Cotter said the private-sector provisions are particularly troubling because many retailers already collect substantial amounts of consumer data.
“As far as the data sharing with corporations, that’s something that’s really concerning to us,” Cotter said. “We already know the way DHS and ICE have been operating. They have been obtaining information in violation of law. They have been creating secret databases on protestors and CORCA would essentially enshrine into law the ability to access and exchange this information with the private corporations.”
He pointed to reports that some major retailers have used automated license plate readers in store parking lots, arguing that such information could ultimately become accessible through expanded federal information-sharing systems.
Beyond surveillance concerns, Cotter questioned whether Congress has demonstrated that organized retail crime requires such an expansive federal response.
“One thing for sure is that’s what we have been hearing is that this is something coming from the retail lobby over this idea of retail theft being out of control,” Cotter said. “There has been a lot of reporting that suggests this concern over the supposed organized retail theft is really overblown.”
Even setting aside the debate over crime statistics, Cotter argued the legislation raises a more fundamental policy question.
“I think it bears the question or that begs the question of Congress of why would a bill that is supposed to be targeting retail theft be actually empowering expanding DHS and ICE and giving them access to American’s private data?” he said.
Rep. Mike Thompson defended his vote in a statement provided to the Vanguard.
“When retailers are robbed, consumers feel less safe and business owners face financial hardship. Unfortunately, organized retail theft is on the rise nationwide and state and local law enforcement are overwhelmed. That’s why I joined 143 other Democrats in supporting this popular, bipartisan bill,” Thompson said.
“This bill helps local, state, and the federal government target and prosecute serious criminals running organized crime rings — and importantly, it does not grant the federal government any new authority to collect data on Americans.”
Cotter disputed that assessment, arguing that the legislation has broader implications than supporters acknowledge.
“CORCA isn’t just an organized retail crime bill—it’s a blueprint for expanding government surveillance and ICE’s role in domestic policing, without the transparency or accountability Americans deserve,” he said.
The legislation has also generated frustration among advocates because of the large number of Democratic supporters despite months of criticism directed at DHS and ICE.
“We’ve been hearing for months now, Democrats have been stating that they’re going to reign in ICE because they know that’s what the voters are demanding,” Cotter said. “But they cannot credibly claim that they’re reigning in DHS while simultaneously voting for a bill like CORCA that expands ICE’s surveillance powers and ability to access and hoard data on Americans.”
In a separate statement provided to the Vanguard, Cotter was even more direct.
“For months Democrats have said they’re holding the line on DHS. Voters are demanding limits on ICE—not expanded surveillance powers. You can’t promise one and vote for the other.”
Cotter acknowledged, however, that some members may not have fully understood the legislation before the House vote.
“One thing I will say is that the vote came up very quickly and we didn’t have as much time as we would’ve liked to have done to educate the members about what’s really actually in this bill,” he said. “One thing that we did see… is that 10 (Democratic) co-sponsors of that legislation… ultimately did not vote for it, which I thought was a good sign in terms of people realizing what’s really in that bill.”
Cotter also expressed concern about reports that Senate supporters may attempt to move the legislation through the National Defense Authorization Act rather than as stand-alone legislation.
“Senators Grassley and Durbin put out a statement that they intend to try to move CORCA through must pass legislation, the NDAA,” Cotter said. “Legislation as sweeping and that infringes on civil liberties like CORCA does really deserves a full debate and not really a free ride on a must pass bill, which is essentially what the NDA is.”
In a separate statement, Cotter added: “The defense bill shouldn’t be used as a backdoor to expand domestic surveillance. If Congress wants to give DHS new surveillance powers, it should debate them openly—not hide them in must-pass legislation.”
The Vera Institute’s memorandum reaches a similar conclusion, arguing that once surveillance infrastructure is established it is rarely dismantled, even if portions of the program eventually expire. The organization also warns that expanded federal information-sharing systems could permanently reshape relationships between DHS, private corporations and local law enforcement agencies.
Whether those concerns persuade lawmakers remains uncertain. Supporters continue to characterize CORCA as a targeted effort to combat increasingly sophisticated retail theft organizations, while opponents argue the measure reaches far beyond organized crime by embedding new surveillance authorities into federal law.
As Congress considers the legislation’s future in the Senate, the debate has expanded beyond retail theft itself to broader questions about privacy, immigration enforcement, federal surveillance powers and whether significant changes to domestic law enforcement authority should be considered independently rather than folded into larger must-pass legislation.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
