Oppose DHS Administrative Subpoenas Targeting ICE Critics

The Department of Homeland Security has issued hundreds of administrative subpoenas in recent months demanding personal information about social media users who criticize ICE. According to government officials and tech employees who confirmed this practice, DHS has requested names, email addresses, phone numbers, and other identifying data from Google, Meta, Reddit, and Discord. These platforms collectively hold data for hundreds of millions of Americans. This surveillance targets people engaged in constitutionally protected speech. Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology, warns that these administrative subpoenas are dangerous because the government can use them to compel disclosure of personal information even when there is no suspicion of criminal activity. ICE appears to be using them to silence critics. A recent Philadelphia case demonstrates the chilling effect of this practice. A man who emailed DHS urging them to apply common sense and decency in treating an Afghan asylum seeker faced a subpoena to Google for his identity and home address. Two weeks after notification, two DHS agents and a local police officer appeared at his residence for interrogation. He successfully challenged the subpoena on First Amendment grounds between February 3 and February 10, forcing DHS to withdraw. As ACLU-PA senior supervising attorney Stephen A. Loney stated, these administrative subpoenas are abusive tactics intended to chill speech and punish disagreement with the government. I urge you to support congressional hearings on ICE's use of administrative subpoena authority and to sponsor legislation restricting their use against Americans exercising First Amendment rights. Citizens should be able to criticize government agencies without fear of surveillance or intimidation. This practice threatens the fundamental right to dissent that defines our democracy. Will you commit to investigating this abuse of administrative subpoenas and working to protect constituents from retaliation for protected speech?