As usual most journalists are garbage LLM rewriters of other text by some source journalists who have also only heard it from someone else. You can tell because

As usual most journalists are garbage LLM rewriters of other text by some source journalists who have also only heard it from someone else. You can tell because they cannot link the case or anything. It must be related to this recent case It is further ORDERED that all Federal Agents who are conducting immigration enforcement operations in the Northern District of Illinois, excepting those who do not wear a uniform or other distinguishing clothing or equipment in the regular performance of their official duties or are engaged in undercover operations in the regular performance of their official duties, that are currently equipped and trained with body-worn cameras (“BWCs”) shall activate them when engaged in enforcement activity unless exempted by CBP, ICE, or DHS policy. a. The definitions of “body worn cameras” shall be as defined in DHS Policy Statement: Body Worn Camera: Audio/video/digital recording equipment combined into a single unit and typically worn on clothing or otherwise secured to a person, e.g., affixed to the outside of the carrier/tactical vest facing forward. DHS Policy Statement 045-07 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71559589/66/chicago-headline-club-v-noem/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71559589/66/chicago-hea... And here’s the policy statement https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/23_0522_opa_signed-dhs-policy-on-body-worn-cameras-508.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/23_0522_opa_... A good journalist would have found out these things and then shared them and an exceptional one would have told us if there are subsequent policies of the DHS that have changed the BWC procedure. And they could perhaps explain why the DHS cannot simply change the policy instead of fighting in court.