A state representative who has spent years on the Oregon Homeland Security Council is calling for legislators to examine cases handled by Oregon’s anti-terrorism intelligence center, placing the operation’s investigative practices and protections for lawful political activity before the Legislature heading into 2027.
Rep. Paul Evans, a member of the Homeland Security Council since 2018, has called for greater transparency surrounding the Oregon Terrorism Information Threat Assessment Network Fusion Center and a mechanism capable of examining individual cases for compliance with state law. His proposal follows years of litigation and documented controversy involving the collection of information connected to political demonstrations, environmental advocacy and social-media activity.
Known as the Oregon TITAN Fusion Center, the operation has functioned since 2007 as an intelligence clearinghouse linking Oregon law enforcement with federal agencies and other public-safety organizations. Housed within the Oregon Department of Justice Criminal Justice Division, TITAN receives and analyzes information involving suspected terrorism and criminal activity, prepares threat assessments, distributes intelligence and assists investigations across jurisdictional boundaries.
Its reach extends into the national fusion-center network developed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when failures to share intelligence among government agencies became a central concern in the restructuring of American homeland security. The Department of Homeland Security and FBI participate in that nationwide information-sharing system, while Oregon retains responsibility for operation of its own center.
TITAN’s original counterterrorism mission has expanded into an all-crimes intelligence operation. Information can reach the center through law-enforcement agencies, suspicious-activity reports and a statewide network of Fusion Liaison Officers. Analysts can then evaluate that material and distribute intelligence to agencies when criminal or public-safety concerns are identified.
That authority operates alongside one of Oregon’s clearest statutory restrictions on police intelligence gathering.
ORS 181A.250 generally prohibits law-enforcement agencies from collecting or maintaining information concerning a person’s political, religious or social views, associations or activities unless the information directly relates to a criminal investigation and reasonable grounds exist to suspect involvement in criminal conduct. Oregon’s constitutional protections for expression provide an additional legal framework surrounding government collection of information connected to political activity.
The limits have increasingly encountered modern investigative technology capable of searching social-media conversations, public posts and digital networks on a scale unavailable when many traditional policing standards were developed.
Oregon experienced the consequences of that collision more than a decade ago.
An investigator assigned to the state intelligence operation used social-media monitoring technology in 2015 to search terms associated with the Black Lives Matter movement. The search reached the account of Erious Johnson Jr., then director of civil rights for the Oregon Department of Justice.
Then-Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum ordered an independent investigation after the activity became known. The episode ultimately produced litigation, and Oregon reached a $205,000 settlement with Johnson in 2017.
TITAN’s authority is now before Oregon’s appellate courts through a separate dispute involving environmental and social-justice organizations.
Farrell-Smith, Rogue Climate, 350Eugene and others sued the Oregon Department of Justice over the fusion center’s legal authority and intelligence practices. The plaintiffs allege information was collected concerning environmental organizations, community groups and Native American tribes involved in opposition to pipeline development without adequate evidence tying their activities to criminal conduct.
The allegations have not been established as findings that TITAN violated Oregon law. The litigation has advanced to the Oregon Court of Appeals, where the dispute carries implications for how the state defines the center’s authority and the statutory foundation supporting its operations.
Civil-liberties organizations participating in the appellate case have pressed a broader argument: if Oregon intends to operate a fusion center, the Legislature should expressly establish its authority and define the limits, safeguards and accountability requirements governing intelligence collection.
Oregon DOJ maintains that substantial safeguards already surround the operation.
The department reports that TITAN undergoes multiple audits each year and that those examinations have found the center compliant with state and federal requirements. The department has not provided a consolidated public accounting identifying every auditing agency, the scope of each examination or whether complete findings from those reviews are publicly accessible.
TITAN policies also provide for reviews of stored intelligence, investigations of alleged unauthorized or unlawful use of information and continuing evaluation of privacy, civil-rights and civil-liberties protections. Federal standards governing fusion centers incorporate similar requirements involving privacy policies, information security, personnel training and restrictions surrounding intelligence collection.
Oregon’s own auditors have previously examined TITAN from another direction.
A 2022 Oregon Secretary of State audit of the state’s preparedness for domestic terrorism and violent extremism described TITAN as part of an intelligence structure heavily connected with federal resources. The audit found Oregon agencies working alongside federal organizations that supplied substantial personnel, funding, equipment and other resources while the state operated with comparatively limited staffing and capacity.
The center has simultaneously received recognition for its public-safety work. Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced in April that members of TITAN had received national honors for intelligence analysis, critical-infrastructure protection and leadership within the fusion-center system. Oregon DOJ has credited the operation with evaluating suspicious activity, assisting criminal investigations, identifying potential threats and moving intelligence between agencies that otherwise might not possess the same information.
Evans’ proposal now places those competing responsibilities before Oregon officials: preserving an intelligence network designed to identify genuine threats while determining whether its safeguards are sufficient to prevent lawful political activity from becoming intelligence material without a legitimate criminal basis.
The Legislature could take up the issue during its 2027 session, when legislators may consider additional auditing, case-review procedures, disclosure requirements or statutory language governing the center. The Oregon Court of Appeals could independently shape TITAN’s future through the pending litigation over its authority and intelligence practices.
Nearly 20 years after Oregon established TITAN as part of the post-Sept. 11 intelligence network, the center remains embedded in the state’s public-safety system. The next decisions surrounding it will be made not over the necessity of sharing information about genuine threats, but over the legal boundaries governing what Oregon may collect when the information belongs to people exercising political speech, association and protest rights protected by law.