In the heart of Vermont, a state often praised for its progressive values and environmental leadership, two high-stakes federal battles are unfolding—each with far-reaching implications for civil liberties, clean energy, and the relationship between state and federal power. The twin stories, both rooted in recent actions by the Trump administration, have left Vermonters grappling with the consequences of federal intervention in their backyard and the uncertain reliability of national commitments.
Just fifteen minutes from Senator Bernie Sanders’s headquarters in Burlington, the small hamlet of Williston has become an unexpected epicenter in the nation’s immigration enforcement apparatus. According to The New Republic, two of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) three main targeting facilities and its national tip line are housed here. These centers, including the National Criminal Analysis and Targeting Center (NCATC) and the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), have quietly powered the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive deportation efforts.
In recent weeks, Williston has seen mounting protests as ICE moves to hire a dozen open-source intelligence analysts to scour social media around the clock, further fueling what critics describe as an unprecedented immigration crackdown. The intelligence produced by the NCATC is sent to 25 enforcement and removal operations field offices nationwide, arming agents with detailed biographical, criminal, immigration, custody, naturalization, vehicle, insurance, and—since April—IRS data. This expansion of data sources, now including IRS records thanks to a controversial April memorandum, is being contested in court over privacy concerns.
ICE’s targeting doesn’t stop at government databases. The NCATC routinely queries commercial data brokers for information on individuals the government cannot otherwise access, and per ICE’s own documents, these data sets include vast numbers of U.S. citizens. The scope of this surveillance has alarmed many Vermonters, especially as plans emerged to hire 100 new call center staff for the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Williston tip line. As outlined in a federal solicitation on October 1, 2025, these analysts will not only take calls about alleged immigration violations but also report and investigate other criminal or civil infractions, conducting research across DHS and commercial databases to corroborate allegations. Notably, these new hires can work remotely, a detail that has not gone unnoticed by local residents concerned about oversight.
Protesters have gathered outside the NCATC, voicing their fears that Vermont is becoming a nerve center for national deportation operations. Despite the public outcry, Vermont’s elected officials have struggled to take decisive action. Senator Bernie Sanders, a vocal critic of ICE, told a crowd in McAllen, Texas, “we got to figure out a way to stop ICE from what they are doing as soon as possible.” Yet, when pressed by The New Republic for specifics on local efforts to counter ICE’s activities in Williston, Sanders did not respond.
Other members of Vermont’s congressional delegation have spoken out. Senator Peter Welch’s office said, “DHS’s reported plans to expand intelligence gathering operations at the National Criminal Analysis and Targeting Center in Williston cannot become a backdoor for mass surveillance of Vermonters or U.S. residents. Senator Welch has been and will continue to work to hold the Trump Administration accountable when its mass deportation agenda violates federal law or hurts Vermonters.” Representative Rebecca Balint echoed these concerns, stating, “The idea of expanding NCATC to blindly comb social media brings up serious constitutional and privacy concerns. We cannot let the Trump administration use immigration to veil their creation of a surveillance state. My office is working to investigate as this develops.”
Despite these warnings, no concrete steps have been taken to limit ICE’s operations in Vermont. There have been no calls to end state and local collaboration with DHS joint task forces, nor efforts to evict ICE from its Williston facilities or obtain and release internal targeting protocols. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security continues to consolidate its control of federal law enforcement through Homeland Security Task Forces, authorized by Executive Order 14159 signed by President Trump in January 2025. National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, signed by Trump at the end of September, further emboldens these task forces to pursue anyone opposing his migration policy—explicitly including those with so-called “anti-American” sentiments. The memorandum is expected to double the federal terrorism watchlist and includes opposition to ICE agents as a target for crackdowns on dissent.
While Vermont wrestles with its role as a hub for federal enforcement, another battle is being waged in the courts over the future of clean energy in the state. In April 2024, Vermont was awarded $62.45 million from the federal “Solar for All” program, a product of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The grant was designed to bring solar power to low-income families through three initiatives: RAISE (loans and incentives for homeowners), MASH (over $22 million for affordable housing solar installations), and ACRE (expansion of community solar programs). These programs were projected to serve approximately 8,300 households, cutting their electricity bills by at least 20%.
By fall 2024, grant agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were finalized, and the first benefits were expected to roll out in the second half of 2025. But in August and September 2025, over $57 million was drained from Vermont’s accounts by the EPA, effectively terminating the program. Vermont’s Attorney General, joined by 20 other states, filed a lawsuit arguing the funding was a legally binding commitment and that its termination was an “unlawful cancellation.”
The Trump administration, however, cites the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a major tax and spending law signed on July 4, 2025, which repealed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that financed Solar for All. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the agency’s actions, stating it was simply complying with a new congressional mandate: the law eliminated EPA’s authority to administer the program, making the grant’s continuation impossible. The administration has also dismissed the program as a “slush fund” and a “boondoggle,” framing its end as a fiscally responsible move.
The legal fight is playing out on two fronts. Vermont and its allies have filed a contract dispute in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking damages equal to the lost funding, and a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court, arguing the cancellation violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the separation of powers. The outcome will determine not only the fate of a $62 million clean energy investment but also the reliability of federal partnerships for Vermont and other states.
Underlying both stories is a deeper tension: the fragility of federal commitments and the growing reach of executive power. For Vermonters, the stakes are immediate and tangible—whether in the form of expanded surveillance and immigration enforcement or the sudden loss of promised clean energy investments. As these battles play out, the state finds itself at the crossroads of national debates over privacy, environmental policy, and the limits of federal authority.
In this moment, Vermont stands as a microcosm of America’s larger struggles—with its citizens and leaders alike forced to reckon with the real-world impact of decisions made far beyond their borders.
