The Department of Homeland Security is trying to force tech companies to hand over data about Trump critics

The Department of Homeland Security is quietly demanding that tech companies hand over user information about critics of the Trump administration, according to reports.

In several cases in recent months, DHS has relied on the use of administrative subpoenas to obtain identifying information about individuals running anonymous Instagram accounts that share posts about immigration raids conducted by ICE in their local neighborhoods. These subpoenas have also been used to demand information about people who have criticized Trump officials or protested government policies.

Unlike judicial subpoenas, which are authorized by a judge after seeing enough evidence of a crime to allow the search or seizure of someone’s things, administrative subpoenas are issued by federal agencies, allowing investigators to search for a wealth of information about individuals from technology and phone companies without a judge’s oversight.

Although administrative subpoenas cannot be used to obtain the contents of someone’s emails, online searches, or location data, they can ask for specific information about the user, such as when the user logs in, from where, use of devices, disclosure of email addresses and other identifying information about who opened an online account. But because administrative subpoenas are not backed by the authority of a judge or court order, it is largely up to the company whether to provide any data to the requesting government agency.

Administrative subpoenas are not new; The use of these self-signed demands by Trump officials to obtain identifiable information about people critical of the president’s policies has raised concern.

Bloomberg reported last week that the Department of Homeland Security sought to identify an anonymous Instagram account called @montocowatch, which says its goal is to share resources to help protect immigrants’ rights and due process across Montgomery County in Pennsylvania. This comes amid an ongoing federal crackdown on immigration across the United States, which has sparked widespread protests and condemnations. DHS lawyers sent an administrative subpoena to Meta demanding that it turn over the personal information of the person running the account, citing a non-DHS employee who claimed to have received information that ICE agents were being stalked.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the account holder, said there is no evidence of wrongdoing and that recording police, sharing that recording and doing so anonymously is legal and protected under the First Amendment. The Department of Homeland Security withdrew the subpoena without providing an explanation.

The ACLU called the subpoena “part of a broader strategy to intimidate people who document immigration activities or criticize government actions.”

Bloomberg reported that the effort to expose the @montcowatch account was not an isolated incident, noting at least four other cases in which Department of Homeland Security officials used administrative subpoenas in an attempt to identify people who ran Instagram accounts and posted content critical of the government. Those subpoenas were also withdrawn after the account holders sued to block the attempt.

Technology companies in recent years have published transparency reports detailing the number of government requests for data they receive. But most do not indicate how many judicial and administrative subpoenas they receive over a period of time, even though the two types of demands are fundamentally different.

When asked by TechCrunch, Meta spokesperson Francis Brennan did not say whether Meta had provided internal security with any data related to @montcowatch or if the company had been asked to provide information about the account in some other way.

A new Washington Post report on Tuesday found that an administrative subpoena was also used to obtain information from Google about a US retiree within hours of him sending a crucial email to the Department of Homeland Security’s lead lawyer, Joseph Dirnbach. The retiree’s home was later visited by federal agents to inquire about the email.

The newspaper described the retiree as someone who was critical of Trump during his first term, who attended the “No Kings” rally last year, regularly attends rallies and protests, and writes criticism of lawmakers, all actions protected by the First Amendment.

Within five hours of emailing the Department of Homeland Security lawyer — who was named in an article about the case of an Afghan the United States was trying to deport and whose email address was listed on the Florida Bar Association’s website — the retired attorney received an email from Google, according to The Washington Post. The email informed him that his account had been subpoenaed by the Department of Homeland Security.

The subpoena demanded the day, time, and duration of all his online sessions, his IP address and physical address, a list of every service he used, and any other usernames and identifying information related to his account, such as his credit card, driver’s license, and Social Security numbers.

Two weeks later, Homeland Security agents were on his doorstep, asking him questions about the email he had sent to Dernbach, which the agents admitted did not violate any laws.

Caitlin Jabbari, a Google spokeswoman, told TechCrunch that the company rejects overbroad or inappropriate subpoenas, “as we did in this case,” referring to the subpoena referenced in the Washington Post report.

When Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin asked TechCrunch, she did not say why the US was seeking information about people who criticized the Trump administration and accounts documenting ICE activity, nor did she say why the subpoenas were being withdrawn.

“HSI has broad administrative subpoena authority under 8 USC § 1225(d) and 19 USC § 1509(a)(1) to issue subpoenas,” McLaughlin said, referring to Homeland Security Investigations, an investigative unit within ICE.

Not all companies are able to hand over data about their customers. For example, information that is end-to-end encrypted and can only be accessed by grabbing someone’s phone or devices. However, many companies are still able to provide large amounts of information about their users, including where they log in, how they log in, and from where, which may allow investigators to uncover anonymous accounts.

End-to-end encrypted messaging apps, like Signal, have long defended how little data they collect on their users. The messaging app responds to occasional legal demands by indicating that it is unable to produce user data that it does not have to initiate.

Reliance on American technology giants is another reason why European countries and ordinary consumers are seeking to rely less on American technology giants, at a time when CEOs and senior leaders of some of the largest American technology companies are openly warming to the Trump administration.