COINTELPRO Then & Now: Surveillance, Discrimination & Systemic Harassment

Updated: September 29, 2025

When people hear “COINTELPRO,” they often think of the 1950s‑70s FBI program that targeted the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Jr., and other civil rights leaders. That program’s tactics — secret surveillance, infiltration, disruption, disinformation — were meant to “neutralize” dissent. What many don’t fully understand is how its patterns live on today, under new names, new technologies, and in local institutions: sometimes in policing, social services, and digital monitoring.

In this article, we’ll explore:

• What COINTELPRO was, how it targeted communities

• What has changed, what is similar

• Recent examples — especially in Minnesota — of behavior echoing COINTELPRO’s tactics

• How discrimination plays into all this

• What it means for people exposed to these practices

What Was COINTELPRO

COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was a covert FBI initiative from ~1956 through the early 1970s. Its stated objectives were to monitor, infiltrate, discredit, and disrupt domestic political organizations. Groups seen as threats to the status quo — civil rights organizations, socialist or communist groups, anti–war protesters — were monitored or sabotaged.

Key methods included:

• Infiltration: Use of informants inside groups

• Surveillance: Wiretaps, mail opening, physical monitoring

• Disinformation / Smear campaigns: Spreading false rumors to sow distrust

• Legal harassment: Using law enforcement or courts to intimidate or arrest

COINTELPRO was eventually exposed via leaks and lawsuits; parts of its records became public. But its legacy remains, especially in how state apparatuses view dissent, protest, and marginalized communities.

What Remains: COINTELPRO‑Style Tactics Today

Modern technology, social media, and expansive law enforcement powers mean that many of the same tactics are still possible — often more subtly, and often under legal cover. Elements of disguise, records manipulation, surveillance, infiltration, and targeted harassment still appear.

Some changes:

• Digital technologies (social media monitoring, undercover online accounts) allow covert monitoring without physical presence.

• Data sharing across agencies or departments widens the scope.

• Legal and bureaucratic systems offer more procedural “cover” for behavior that previously would have been clearly illegal.

Still, many old patterns are visible: marginalized communities being surveilled more, communities having less ability to challenge or stop abuses, and institutional forces working to suppress dissent and control community movements.

Recent Minnesota Examples: Echoes of COINTELPRO

Minnesota has produced several cases over the past few years that reflect tactics akin to COINTELPRO’s. Below are documented examples:

Social Media Surveillance & Covert Accounts by Minneapolis Police

• A 2022 report by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights found that Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) used fake or covert social media accounts to monitor Black individuals, Black organizers, and civil rights groups (e.g. the NAACP, the Urban League). These activities included sending friend requests, joining conversations, posting comments, sending private messages, all without a clear public safety justification. 

• One example: an MPD covert account was used to RSVP to a birthday party held by a prominent Black civil rights attorney (Nekima Levy Armstrong), who was also a mayoral candidate on a police‐accountability platform. Uniformed officers later showed up at this event. The lawsuit filed by NAACP alleges this was part of coordinated harassment. 

These behaviors mirror COINTELPRO’s infiltration and surveillance of civil rights groups, but in the digital/social media age — making them harder to detect, harder to prove, and easier to conceal under “public safety” or investigative justifications.

Discriminatory Policing & Pattern/Practice Findings

• In 2022, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) released a “pattern or practice” civil rights report, concluding that MPD engaged in racial discrimination over at least a decade. This included disproportionate use of force, traffic stops, searches, frequent targeting of people of color, Native Americans. 

• The report found that Black people are stopped and searched at a higher rate than white people, that force (and harsher force) is used disproportionately, and that “covert or fake social media account” surveillance of Black individuals and organizations was conducted without proper oversight. 

Legal Action & Community Response

• In 2023, the Minneapolis NAACP filed a lawsuit against the MPD, based in part on findings that surveillance of Black groups and leaders was done via fake social media accounts, harassment, and unequal treatment under the law. The case cites violations of free speech, equal protection, and state human rights law. 

• Local community organizations had gathered thousands of testimonies of MPD misconduct (stops, use of force, failure to protect, etc.), which fed into state and federal investigations into systemic discrimination. 

Discrimination: The Thread Running Through

A few patterns make it clear that what’s happening isn’t random or occasional; there is racial, social, and economic discrimination at the core:

• The surveillance and social media monitoring are disproportionately aimed at Black communities, Black civil rights groups, and people of color — not comparably at white groups or white community organizations. 

• Stops, searches, use of force, and other coercive policing tactics occur at higher rates for Black and Indigenous people than for whites in comparable situations. 

• Training, culture, and oversight structures appear to tolerate or enable discriminatory practices — including the use of fake or covert identities, lack of transparency, racialized assumptions about danger or criminality. 

Historic Cases: COINTELPRO & Beyond

To understand the seriousness, here are a few historic examples so that readers can see the parallels:

• Black Panther Party – COINTELPRO infiltrated, spread rumors, created distrust within, disrupted leadership.

• Martin Luther King, Jr. – Wiretaps, postal monitoring, effort to discredit him.

• Malcolm X and others – Surveillance, attempts to sow conflict, discrediting.

These were explicit in their objectives to prevent political organizing, suppress civil rights, and maintain racial hierarchies.

Why These Tactics Persist

What allows COINTELPRO‑style behavior to continue, often under the surface:

1. Technological enablement: Social media, data mining, digital surveillance make surveillance easier and more scalable.

2. Legal ambiguities & weak oversight: Many laws or policies lag behind technology; oversight bodies are underfunded or lack real power.

3. Institutional incentives to control dissent: Institutions often see protest or activism as threats, so suppressing or neutralizing them becomes a priority.

4. Racial bias built into policing and social systems: Assumptions about danger, criminality, fear of political organizing in marginalized communities make those communities default targets.

What This Means for People Being Targeted

• Organizers, activists, journalists, community leaders face serious dangers beyond obvious threats: social isolation, being surveilled and discredited, harassment from law enforcement, legal threats.

• People in marginalized communities often cannot access the protections or transparency others do. They may lack the resources to sue or hold institutions accountable.

What Can Be Done

• Legal reforms: clear limits on surveillance (digital and physical), oversight of police social media use, stricter accountability.

• Transparency: public records of misconduct, oversight of years of police social media surveillance, audit trails.

• Community power: organizing, documenting abuses, pushing for civil rights investigations, supporting lawsuits.

• Awareness: exposing the similarities between historic COINTELPRO and current practices helps people recognize that this isn’t just “isolated abuses” but systemic patterns.

Final Thought

COINTELPRO didn’t end. It evolved. Its legacy is visible in how state and local institutions surveil and suppress communities of color today, in ways sometimes more subtle, sometimes more invasive. Recognizing these patterns — knowing what to look for — is essential in resisting them.

References

ACLU of Minnesota. (2022, April 27). ACLU‑MN responds to new report showing MPD pattern of racial discrimination. https://www.aclu-mn.org/en/press-releases/mpd-mndhr ACLU of Minnesota

AP News. (2023, May 16). Minneapolis city sued over allegations police used phony social media accounts to spy on activists. https://apnews.com/article/george-floyd-minneapolis-police-eca8c1f839d6fa30e590718068225940 AP News

CBS News. (n.d.). DOJ: Minneapolis, MPD “engage in pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights”. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/doj-minneapolis-mpd-investigation/ CBS News

CBS Minnesota. (2022, April 27). Mpls. police, city engage in “discriminatory, race-based policing,” human rights dept. probe finds. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/department-of-human-rights-minneapolis-police-department-investigation-findings-race-discrimination/ CBS News

CNN. (2022, May 21). Allegations that Minneapolis police spied on Black organizations can’t be substantiated, prosecutor says. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/21/us/minneapolis-police-spying-allegation/index.html CNN

Justice Department, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota. (2023, June 16). Justice Department finds civil rights violations by the Minneapolis Police Department and the City of Minneapolis [Press release]. https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/justice-department-finds-civil-rights-violations-minneapolis-police-department-and-city Department of Justice

Minnesota Department of Human Rights. (2022, April 27). Findings: City and MPD engage in a pattern or practice of race discrimination [Bulletin]. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MNDHR/bulletins/3153884 GovDelivery

Minnesota Government. (n.d.). Investigation findings: MPD Investigation Findings. https://mn.gov/mdhr/mpd/findings/ mn.gov // Minnesota's State Portal

Minnesota Government. (n.d.). About the investigation: MDHR’s investigation into MPD. https://mn.gov/mdhr/mpd/about/index.jsp mn.gov // Minnesota's State Portal

Minnesota Government. (n.d.). DOJ Consent Decree – City of Minneapolis. https://www.minneapolismn.gov/resident-services/public-safety/police-public-safety/investigations-settlement-agreement/ Minneapolis MN

Minnesota Government. (n.d.). Overview: Court enforceable settlement agreement – Minneapolis [City of Minneapolis]. https://www.minneapolismn.gov/resident-services/public-safety/police-public-safety/investigations-settlement-agreement/court-enforceable-settlement-agreement/overview/ Minneapolis MN

Minnesota Government – City of Minneapolis & Minnesota Department of Human Rights. (n.d.). Joint Statement of Principles. https://www.minneapolismn.gov/resident-services/public-safety/police-public-safety/investigations-settlement-agreement/investigations/joint-statement-principles/ Minneapolis MN

Minnesota Spokesman‑Recorder. (2023, May 16). NAACP lawsuit reveals MPD’s decade‑long history of discrimination. https://spokesman-recorder.com/2023/05/16/naacp-lawsuit-reveals-mpds-decade-long-history-of-discrimination/ Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder

U.S. Justice Department & City of Minneapolis. (2023). Consent Decree relating to MPD [Agreement]. (Described in City of Minneapolis public documents) Minneapolis MN+1