Homeland Security Is Trying to Force Tech Companies to Hand Over Data About Trump Critics

The Department of Homeland Security has quietly been pressuring technology companies to provide user data linked to critics of the Trump administration, according to multiple reports.

In several recent cases, Homeland Security has relied on administrative subpoenas to demand identifying information about individuals behind anonymous Instagram accounts that post about ICE immigration raids in their local communities. These demands have also targeted people who have criticized Trump administration officials or participated in protests against government policies.

Unlike judicial subpoenas, which require a judge's approval after investigators present evidence suggesting a crime, administrative subpoenas are issued directly by federal agencies. This process allows authorities to request large amounts of user data from tech and telecom companies without judicial oversight.

Administrative subpoenas cannot be used to obtain the contents of emails, search histories, or precise location data. However, they can compel companies to turn over detailed user information, including login times, IP addresses, devices used, associated email addresses, and other data that can identify who created or controls an online account. Because the court does not authorize these subpoenas, companies ultimately decide whether to comply with the request.

While administrative subpoenas have long been part of federal investigative powers, their use by Trump-era officials to seek information about individuals critical of government policies has raised fresh concerns among civil liberties advocates.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that Homeland Security attempted to identify the person behind an anonymous Instagram account called @montocowatch. The account describes its mission as sharing resources to protect immigrant rights and due process in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, amid a nationwide immigration crackdown that has sparked protests and public backlash.

According to the report, Homeland Security lawyers sent an administrative subpoena to Meta, demanding personal information about the account owner. The subpoena cited a claim from a non-Homeland Security employee who alleged that ICE agents were being stalked.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the account owner, said there was no evidence of wrongdoing. The group emphasized that recording law enforcement activity, sharing that information, and doing so anonymously are all legal and protected under the First Amendment. Homeland Security later withdrew the subpoena without explaining.

The ACLU described the action as "part of a broader strategy to intimidate people who document immigration activity or criticize government actions."

Bloomberg further reported that the attempt to unmask the @montocowatch account was not an isolated case. The outlet identified at least four additional instances in which Homeland Security officials used administrative subpoenas to try to identify operators of Instagram accounts critical of the government. In each case, the subpoenas were withdrawn after legal challenges were filed.

Many major technology companies publish transparency reports outlining how often governments request user data. However, most do not clearly distinguish between judicial and administrative subpoenas, despite significant legal differences between them.

A separate investigation by The Washington Post, published Tuesday, revealed another case involving an administrative subpoena. According to the report, Homeland Security sought information from Google about an American retiree just hours after he sent a critical email to Homeland Security's lead attorney, Joseph Dernbach.

The retiree's home was later visited by federal agents questioning him about the email.

The Washington Post described the individual as someone who had criticized Trump during his first term, attended a No Kings rally last year, regularly participated in protests, and contacted lawmakers — activities protected under the First Amendment.

Within five hours of sending the email to Dernbach, whose contact information was publicly available through the Florida Bar, the retiree received a notice from Google stating that the Department of Homeland Security had subpoenaed his account.

The subpoena sought extensive information, including the date, time, and duration of his online sessions; his IP and physical addresses; a list of Google services he used; and any other usernames or identifying details associated with his account. The request also sought sensitive personal information, including credit card data, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers.

Two weeks later, Homeland Security agents visited the retiree's home to ask about the email he sent. The agents reportedly acknowledged that the message did not violate any laws.

"HSI has broad administrative subpoena authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(d) and 19 U.S.C. § 1509(a)(1) to issue subpoenas," McLaughlin said, referring to Homeland Security Investigations, an investigative division within ICE.

Not all companies are capable of turning over customer data. End-to-end encrypted services, which can only be accessed through a user's device, often cannot provide meaningful information even when legally compelled. Still, many companies retain metadata — such as login locations and device information — that can be used to identify anonymous users.

Messaging apps that use end-to-end encryption, including Signal, have repeatedly emphasized how little user data they collect. Signal has responded to legal demands by stating that it cannot provide data it does not possess.

The growing reliance on U.S. technology firms is also contributing to a broader push in Europe and elsewhere to reduce dependence on American tech companies. This shift comes at a time when executives at several major U.S. tech firms have been perceived as becoming increasingly aligned with the Trump administration.