Talk:List of secret police organizations

I'm seconding adding SORTs (Special Operations Response Team) to the list. The unmarked units are now identified as SORTs but operate outside their initial purpose, effectively making them a secret police. The wiki definition is:

intelligence, security or police agencies that engage in covert operations against a government's political opponents and dissidents. Secret police organizations are characteristic of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Used to protect the political power of an individual dictator or an authoritarian regime, secret police often operate outside the law and are used to repress dissidents and weaken the political opposition, frequently with violence."

- they violate the constitution

- they are not identified by name, rank or ID

- they respond with violence

- they kidnap people

- and finally the president himself acknowledged it as a tool for political oppression

"Well, it depends on what your definition of “troops” is. I mean, we’re sending law enforcement. Portland was totally out of control. The Democrats — the liberal Democrats running the place had no idea what they were doing. They were ripping down — for 51 days, ripping down that city, destroying the city, looting it. The level of corruption and what was going on there is incredible. And then the governor comes out: “We don’t need any help.”

How about Chicago? I read the numbers were many people killed over the weekend. We’re looking at Chicago too. We’re looking at New York. Look at what’s going on. All run by Democrats, all run by very liberal Democrats. All run, really, by radical left."

source https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-phase-four-negotiations/

I understand it's controversial but it's pretty much the textbook definition of a secret police.

Kiwi72 (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:1811:424:1500:5908:BEEE:12F5:BC64 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You should add Romania's SRI.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

They have been involved in running covert ops against the American left for a long time and employ heavy use of confidential informants against activists in the environmental, pacifist, labor, Black rights, and similar movements.

180.241.28.3 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

And why not ICE? Josh (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done FBI is not a secret police nor is ICE a secret police, read my explanation below [Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2026]. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to the Office 610's Wikipedia page they were disbanded in 2018. Shouldn't they be moved to the Historical or otherwise removed from this one? LeftArchive (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@LeftArchive:,  Done, as seemingly Office 610, has been removed already, I'm closing this request. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ICE is the United States secret police organization. They deserve to be added to this list. ~2026-14063-0 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources need to refer to ICE as a secret police organization for it to be eligible for this list. —Sirdog (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

This falls under ^{[neutrality is disputed]}, I concur with @Sirdog, but not only that primary sources (i.e., the actual government) has to provide a mandate which would allow ICE to operate in the fashion of "secret police". Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Do they need to refer to ICE as "secret police" specifically? Many sources say how ICE has become Trump's personal police force and are targeting political dissenters but do not specifically use the words "secret police". Below are some sources I found and why they justify this idea.

‘Clouded in mystery’: how Ice became a rogue agency that does Trump’s bidding | Trump administration | The Guardian "Trump’s personal rogue agency doing his bidding regardless of accepted norms and laws" and "Trump’s own private armed force"

How Trump is Building a Violent, Shadowy Federal Police Force — ProPublica "There are virtually no limits on what federal agents can do"; "ICE, in their view, has become an unfettered and unaccountable national police force" (the "their" is "Current and former national security officials"); " 'ICE, their secret police' " (this one is quoted in the article and I'd understand if it can't be used but it does explicitly say it.); " ICE detaining elected officials who attempted to stand in their way";

ICE Wants to Go After Dissenters as well as Immigrants | Brennan Center for Justice "It can trawl the internet for people holding anti-ICE views. It can track the locations where protesters and activists gather and identify their networks of friends and family. It can identify protesters using facial recognition"; "As a result, the government can easily turn these tools against anyone and everyone, with scant safeguards. Now, ICE is announcing that it plans to make this risk a reality for the swath of Americans who oppose the Trump administration’s agenda."; "the federal government now openly says it will use its supercharged spy capabilities to target people who oppose ICE’s actions. Labeled as “domestic terrorists” by the administration, these targets include anti-ICE protesters and anyone who allegedly funds them" ElGrandeDiego (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this DOES sound like the literal definition of Secret Police. Unaccountable, identities are hidden, arrests often done in secret with no information made available to counsel or even local authorities, and now they're attacking ideological and political opponents? They check all the boxes. ~2026-34820-1 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

1. "Do they need to refer to ICE as "secret police" specifically" they "need" a legal mandate which would allow them tendencies of a "secret police", which they don't currently have.

2. "Many sources say how ICE has become Trump's personal police force and are targeting political dissenters but do not specifically use the words "secret police"" This would imply [a leap of faith at best] that POTUS has become illegitimate in violating the law [in relation to raising private forces], which he didn't [yet], and specifically "targeting political dissenters" does not entail a tendency of a "secret police" what it would be considered is a rogue element which therefore, would make POTUS an illegitimate President. "‘Clouded in mystery’: how Ice became a rogue agency that does Trump’s bidding" is the FBI a rogue agency? is the CIA a rogue agency? you could make the same argument for ANY organization that holds classified material, again it is an attention grabbing headline I must admit, however, is it accurate? well..

3. "Trump’s personal rogue agency doing his bidding regardless of accepted norms and laws" This again, implies that POTUS, again, is an illegitimate President who gave unchecked authority to "rogue element" because? reasons!

4. "How Trump is Building a Violent, Shadowy Federal Police Force" Which is illegal if I'm not mistaken, and if it is illegal why isn't ANYONE in power prosecuting POTUS for that specific reason? maybe, just maybe, this is editorializing and not factual?

5. "There are virtually no limits on what federal agents can do"; "ICE, in their view, has become an unfettered and unaccountable national police force" That is, again, illegal, which again, implies POTUS has illegitimate power, ICE has a legal mandate whether or not editors like them or dislike them, isn't "in their view" weasel wording [i.e., bias]?

6. "It can trawl the internet for people holding anti-ICE views. It can track the locations where protesters and activists gather and identify their networks of friends and family. It can identify protesters using facial recognition" Therefore the FBI,CIA,MI5,MI6 are also rogue right? ICE has a legal mandate with per-defined boundaries, if it didn't have those legal boundaries it wouldn't be recognized as a legal entity within the US government [or maybe you are implying that the whole US gov is rogue?].

7. "As a result, the government can easily turn these tools against anyone and everyone, with scant safeguards. Now, ICE is announcing that it plans to make this risk a reality for the swath of Americans who oppose the Trump administration’s agenda" Again buddy, does this make the FBI a "rogue agency"? "with scant safeguards" if I'm not mistaken the systems of "secret agencies" are not opened to the public eye because they are classified, how can this author have access to their "scant safeguards"? The first amendment does not exist apparently "ICE is announcing that it plans to make this risk a reality for the swath of Americans who oppose the Trump administration’s agenda", therefore the US gov is "rogue" right?.. Look I can keep going, however, you are displaying complete lack of discretion between facts and bias.

1. "For what it's worth, this DOES sound like the literal definition of Secret Police" well buddy it's not worth a lot,

2. "Unaccountable, identities are hidden, arrests often done in secret with no information made available to counsel or even local authorities, and now they're attacking ideological and political opponents? They check all the boxes." This, first of all sounds like confirmation bias, but alas, "Unaccountable, identities are hidden, arrests often done in secret with no information made available to counsel or even local authorities" Hmm, buddy, they have a legal mandate, their information could be classified [as is with other agencies CIA/FBI], "arrests often done in secret" most likely as a part of an on-going investigation [as with other agencies when they deal with high-profile incidents], "now they're attacking ideological and political opponents" again like your buddy above, you too [for some odd reason] imply that the US gov has/is gone rogue which is not factual, not to jump to conclusions but both of you display an excess in ^{[neutrality is disputed]}, less so with @ElGrandeDiego who is quoting sources but still. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Guidance changed to account for opinion pieces

As much as I want to stay away from US politics, before it distracts me from more enjoyable things like updating Greek roads according to reliable sources, I have been forced to remove the entry for the United States again, because the two sources provided are based on opinions: in the case of ProPublica, by the people that they interviewed (side note for Sirdog: it could be said that a good night's sleep gave me the energy to act).

The guidance at the top of the talk page has been updated to state that statements of opinion are not enough, because any intelligence agency can be accused of being a secret police force in that way, and then we would be here forever. Reliable sources have to directly refer to the alleged organisation as a secret police, or as a successor to a widely acknowledged secret police (such as the KGB).

I am sorry that the threshold is quite high, but this article has a long history of being a list of "countries we do not like" or "countries run by people we do not like". --Minoa (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure enough @Minoa: the 'threshold' is high, however, overt reliance on "Reliable sources" does open satisfaction of personal biases, necessarily, we have to provide actual tangible context WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, for the example of KGB being a secret police is accurate, for they had the mandate [i.e., the tendency of eliminating political dissidents without any reprimands, effectively sanctioning "hits"], and the popular consensus be it national or foreign, agreed that they were a secret police. The same does NOT apply to ICE, it is not a secret police, because it lacks the mandate, it lacks national and foreign consensus, and most importantly it lacks a sanctioning. These operatives, if crossed the legal boundaries would be eliminated in the preservation of the status quo, whereas the KGB again, was an essential organ of state terror that had deep roots in the government. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to rewrite the guidance as it had remained almost the same for over a decade, and the guidance at the time did not account for the further rise in digital media. Here is what I have in mind, subject to refinement in response to feedback:

1. Provide tangible context: sources should show general consensus that an organisation is a secret police, such as having a covert mandate to crush dissident without risking legal trouble. Try to use two different reliable sources for each entry. Statements of opinion are not enough, because any organisation can be accused of being a secret police force in that way.
2. Make sure the sources are relevant: sources should actually assert that an organisation is a secret police, or a successor to a widely recognised secret police (such as the KGB). The entry for Hong Kong was recently removed, because the source given did not really refer to the National Security Department as a secret police.
3. Take care with older sources: politics can change quickly, so sources published before 31 December 2021 should be backed by newer sources that prove they are still relevant.
4. Use short quotes in sources: quotes will help support the claim, but they should be relevant yet not too long to avoid breaking copyright law. Phrases like "…the Ministry of Love… …the secret police of Oceania…" should be fine.
5. Archive web sources: please use a web archive service like the Wayback Machine to save web sources, so it will be easier to verify them later.
6. Use common sense: this is not an article about countries we do not like. It is most likely a coincidence due to how they run the country.

Best, --Minoa (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your point by point guide, however, pertaining to 2. [perhaps 1.], I think that, perhaps referencing official documentation would be giving more weight to the article, for example "Положение о Комитете государственной безопасности при Совете Министров СССР и его органах на местах" via https://ru.wikisource.org, it explains in detail what the legal mandate of KGB was. Hence while implementing secondary/tertiary sources, editors could use it as a referencing data point [i.e., Does X organization display Y tendency based on its legal mandate, no? then it should not be considered as a "secret police"]. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I try to accommodate your concerns, but ultimately the recommendation for all articles in general is reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and/or accuracy. In addition, the sources have to assert that an organisation is a secret police, or a successor to a widely recognised secret police: this is because we had cases where editors added entries with sources that actually talk something else about the alleged organisation, hoping that we would not check the source. --Minoa (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Again I reassert, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, by considering both primary and secondary/tertiary sources contributors and respective readers are enabled to gain a greater understanding of a particular matter. We cannot just rely upon a secondary/tertiary source which may or may not consider the actual mandate of a particular organization. For, in most cases news organizations [as an example] expect their readers to be familiar with a particular topic. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY) are a bit of a grey area here, because organisations widely considered to be secret police (like the KDB/KGB of Belarus) often deny such status, or twist their publications in an attempt to whitewash their actions. Context does matter, but do does the independence of sources, especially for a very controversial article like this. --Minoa (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I retort, with a simple fact checking process:

Per

"4. The State Security Committee and its local bodies in their practical activities are obliged to maintain close contact with the workers, constantly rely on their help in the fight against anti-Soviet and hostile elements and take an active part in the work carried out by party organizations among the workers to increase political vigilance." This is a select translation of the KGB's legal mandate. Here there is a clear explanation of a "secret police" tendency though legal in nature. What I am insinuating is that, if we are going to cite primary sources, cite the codified legal text above reports or general news, though, of course this also depends on context. By citing the actual codified text, I am not persuaded by the bias, for the law is impartial and plain. You can't reasonably state that there is "white washing" when it comes to law, for the law would not have credibility or a legal mandate. If there isn't an available legal text that details the mandate of [say CIA], then cite the penal code relating to that agency etc. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I may have to ask for a second opinion, because while I am trying to address the risk of bias here, primary sources are still a grey area for the reasons I mentioned earlier. For the record, academic and scholarly sources are not primary sources. --Minoa (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)