Congress Must Stop DHS and Social Media Companies from Unmasking ICE Critics

I write to express serious concern about recent reporting that the Department of Homeland Security has issued hundreds of administrative subpoenas to social media companies seeking identifying information behind anonymous accounts that criticize or track Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to reporting in The New York Times, DHS has requested names, email addresses, and other identifying data associated with accounts that post about ICE activity or criticize the agency. Some companies have complied with certain requests. In several documented cases, subpoenas were withdrawn only after individuals, represented by civil liberties attorneys, challenged them in court. Administrative subpoenas are issued by executive agencies without prior judicial approval. That authority was granted by Congress and is funded by Congress. It was historically used sparingly in investigations of serious criminal conduct. Its expanded use to unmask anonymous speakers engaged in political expression raises significant constitutional concerns. Anonymous political speech occupies a protected place in American constitutional tradition. If the executive branch may compel disclosure of identifying information about critics without prior judicial oversight, the burden shifts to private citizens to hire counsel and initiate litigation merely to preserve their First Amendment rights. That structural imbalance creates a chilling effect regardless of whether a subpoena is ultimately withdrawn. The issue here is not immigration policy. It is not whether one supports or opposes ICE enforcement. It is whether executive subpoena authority may be used to identify individuals engaged in lawful political speech without neutral judicial review — and whether private corporations will comply without demanding that review. Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to address this. I respectfully urge you to: • Conduct oversight hearings examining DHS’s use of administrative subpoenas in cases involving political expression. • Require public reporting on the number and scope of such subpoenas. • Clarify by statute that administrative subpoena authority may not be used to compel disclosure of identifying information based solely on constitutionally protected speech without prior judicial approval. • Condition appropriated funds on compliance with clear First Amendment safeguards. Separation of powers is not self-executing. When executive agencies expand their use of investigatory tools in ways that implicate core constitutional protections, congressional oversight is essential. Americans must remain free to criticize their government without fear that their identities will be unmasked through unilateral executive process. I urge you to act promptly to ensure that administrative subpoena authority is not used in ways that erode fundamental constitutional protections.