How Lexington Alarm helped set the Stage for Public Discussion of Hanscom ICE Flights

The recent Boston Globe article examining ICE charter flights departing from Hanscom Field was the result of months of organizing, research, and coalition-building by Lexington Alarm and allied groups across the region. Far from being a sudden media moment, the story reflected a growing public effort to bring transparency and accountability to the use of a Massachusetts state facility for immigration enforcement operations.

The issue first gained momentum after a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Massport had knowledge of ICE-related charter flights at Hanscom but was not fully sharing that information with the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission. This lack of disclosure raised the possibility that Massport was deliberately keeping information about ICE flights from the Commission, who argued that activities with profound consequences for Massachusetts residents were occurring without adequate public oversight.

In response to the Commission’s request for this data and our desire to increase public scrutiny, Lexington Alarm and partner organizations launched a coordinated letter-writing campaign directed at Massport executives, the Massport Board of Directors, and Governor Maura Healey. To make participation easy and accessible, we developed an online tool that allows individuals to send letters directly to Massport and the Governor both electronically in via regular mail. Because the governor does not accept direct email, the tool enables users to paste a prepared letter — with the option to personalize it — into the state’s intake system. People were also encouraged to mail physical letters to reinforce the message.

As of this week over six hundreds of letters and emails were sent. This response demonstrated that concern about ICE flights from Hanscom extended well beyond Lexington and involved residents across multiple communities.

At the same time, a broad coalition of organizations had begun sponsoring weekly Friday standouts at Hanscom Field. These peaceful demonstrations brought together groups including Boston Workers Circle, Greater ACABET, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, Concord Indivisible, Indivisible LAB, Lincoln Bearing Witness, and others, alongside Lexington Alarm. Attendance at the standouts has consistently ranged from several dozen to nearly one hundred people, even in difficult weather conditions, underscoring sustained community engagement.

It was through this organizing that the Boston Globe became aware of the issue. A member of one of the sponsoring organizations contacted the paper, and the story was ultimately assigned to Globe reporter Laura Crimaldi. As she began reporting, she spoke with representatives from Lexington Alarm and coalition partners to understand both the scope of the flights and the local response they had generated.

Central to the reporting was data compiled by Human Rights First, a nationally recognized organization that tracks ICE flight activity across the country. Advocates had requested Human Rights First’s records for ICE charter flights departing from Hanscom between January and November, identifying approximately 114 flights during that period. Using standard estimates of passenger capacity, advocates concluded that as many as 6,000 people may have been removed from Massachusetts via Hanscom during that time.

As part of her reporting, Crimaldi asked Human Rights First to extend its analysis further back, to 2020, in order to assess trends over time. That expanded review showed a substantial increase in the number of flights validating our contention that Hanscom was a major part of ICE detainee removal operations nationwide.

The Globe also sought to independently document the flights. Members of the coalition, who routinely monitor ICE flight movements alerted the reporter and a Globe photographer that an ICE charter flight was scheduled to arrive. They met at a publicly accessible vantage point near the airport, allowing the paper to obtain photographs of the aircraft later published in the article.

As the story developed Laura Crimaldi contacted the governor’s office for comment. By that point the administration was already aware of public concerns with Hanscom through the letter campaign and through direct conversations between coalition members and gubernatorial staff. When it became clear that the Globe article was imminent, the governor’s office issued a public letter addressing ICE and federal immigration officials.

Advocates welcomed Governor Healey’s statement, particularly her acknowledgment that Massachusetts residents were being removed without due process of law, often within hours of arrest and in ways that cause significant harm to families and communities. The language in the letter closely echoed concerns raised repeatedly by our organizations and we viewed her statement as an important validation of our concerns.

At the same time, Lexington Alarm and its partners emphasized that a letter alone would not resolve the underlying problem. ICE will likely ignore Healey’s letter, or claim in a false statement that they honor due process. ICE operations in Massachusetts are unlikely to change without concrete action at the state level. The coalition’s focus is on steps that Massachusetts authorities can take using their own legal authority.

Massport has argued that federal aviation rules prevent it from restricting flights at Hanscom. This is disingenuous. Our state has full authority to regulate contractors, how state facilities are used in conjunction with Massachusetts laws, and to require all personnel involved in these transfers to uphold state due process requirements. This has nothing to do with the FAA.

Constitutional practice upholds these rights. Under the Tenth Amendment the federal government cannot commandeer state resources or state actors to participate in federal immigration enforcement. In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Lunn v. Commonwealth and guidance from Attorney General Andrea Campbell make clear that state and local law enforcement have no obligation — and no authority — to assist ICE in civil immigration matters.

We argue that Massport has the authority to ensure that its contractors comply with Massachusetts law and to prohibit participation in activities that deny residents due process.

Among the actions they should take are full public disclosure of ICE-related charter operations, establish clear standards for contractors operating on Massport property, and refuse to facilitate removals of individuals who have pending court dates or unresolved immigration claims. Due process requires that people be allowed to remain in the Commonwealth while their cases are heard rather than being transferred out of state without notice or access to counsel.

Other jurisdictions have taken steps in this direction. In King County, Washington, the airport authority overseeing Boeing Field implemented transparency measures, including a public webcam, allowing communities to monitor ICE flight activity in real time. While not stopping federal enforcement outright, such measures increase accountability and help families and advocates locate loved ones.

The Globe article highlighted two interconnected realities: the scale of ICE flight activity at Hanscom, documented through credible national research, and the depth of local opposition emerging across Massachusetts. Together, these factors have elevated the issue into a matter of statewide public concern.

For Lexington Alarm and its coalition partners, the work continues. Plans include expanding the letter campaign, supporting legislative efforts such as the Safe Communities Act, and maintaining a visible presence at Hanscom Field through ongoing standouts. The goal is not symbolic protest, but tangible changes in policy and practice — changes that affirm Massachusetts’ commitment to due process, transparency, and the protection of immigrant communities.

In this context, the Globe article represents not a conclusion, but a milestone in a broader campaign to ensure that state facilities are not used in ways that harm residents or undermine fundamental rights.