Trump regime wants to pursue those who commit Thought Crime
By Mario Trujillo, The Electronic Frontier Foundation
.webp)
In the past year, DHS has consistently targeted people
engaged in First Amendment activity. Among other things, the agency has issued
subpoenas to technology companies to unmask or locate people who have
documented ICE's activities in their community, criticized the government, or
attended protests.
These subpoenas are unlawful, and the government knows it.
When a handful of users challenged a few of them in court with
the help of ACLU affiliates in Northern California and Pennsylvania,
DHS withdrew them
rather than waiting for a decision.
These subpoenas are unlawful, and the government knows it.
But it is difficult for the average user to fight back on
their own. Quashing a subpoena is a fast-moving process that requires lawyers
and resources. Not everyone can afford a lawyer on a moment’s notice, and
non-profits and pro-bono attorneys have already been stretched to near capacity
during the Trump administration.
That is why we, joined by the ACLU of Northern
California, have asked several large tech platforms to do more to protect their
users, including:
- Insist
on court intervention and an order before complying with a DHS subpoena,
because the agency has already proved that its legal process is often
unlawful and unconstitutional;
- Give
users as much notice as possible when they are the target of a subpoena,
so the user can seek help. While many companies have already made this promise,
there are high-profile examples of
it not happening—ultimately stripping users of their day in
court;
- Resist
gag orders that would prevent companies from notifying their users that
they are a target of a subpoena.
We sent the letter to Amazon, Apple, Discord, Google,
Meta, Microsoft, Reddit, SNAP, TikTok, and X.
Recipients are not legally compelled to comply with administrative subpoenas absent a court order
An administrative subpoena is an investigative tool
available to federal agencies like DHS. Many times, these are sent to
technology companies to obtain user data. A subpoena cannot be used to obtain
the content of communications, but they have been used to try and obtain some
basic subscriber information like name, address, IP address, length of service,
and session times.
Unlike a search warrant, an administrative subpoena is not
approved by a judge. If a technology company refuses to comply, an agency’s
only recourse is to drop it or go to court and try to convince a judge that the
request is lawful. That is what we are asking companies to do—simply require
court intervention and not obey in advance.
It is unclear how many administrative subpoenas DHS has
issued in the past year. Subpoenas can come from many places—including civil
courts, grand juries, criminal trials, and administrative agencies like DHS.
Altogether, Google received
28,622 and Meta received
14,520 subpoenas in the first half of 2025, according to their transparency
reports. The numbers are not broken out by type.
DHS is abusing its authority to issue subpoenas
In the past year, DHS has used these subpoenas to target
protected speech. The following are just a few of the known examples.
On April 1, 2025, DHS sent
a subpoena to Google in an attempt to locate a Cornell PhD student in
the United States on a student visa. The student was likely
targeted because of his brief attendance at a protest the year
before. Google
complied with the subpoena without giving the student an opportunity
to challenge it. While Google promises to
give users prior notice, it sometimes breaks that promise to avoid delay. This
must stop.
In September 2025, DHS sent a subpoena and summons to Meta
to try to unmask anonymous users behind Instagram accounts that tracked ICE
activity in communities in California and Pennsylvania.
The users—with the help of the ACLU and its state affiliates— challenged the
subpoenas in court, and DHS withdrew the subpoenas before a court could make a
ruling. In the Pennsylvania case, DHS tried to use legal authority that its
own inspector
general had already criticized in a lengthy report.
In October 2025, DHS
sent Google a subpoena demanding information about a retiree who
criticized the agency’s policies. The retiree had sent an email asking the
agency to use common sense and decency in a high-profile asylum case. In a
shocking turn, federal agents later appeared on that person’s doorstep. The
ACLU is currently challenging the subpoena.