DHS Monitoring Social Media for Anti-ICE Statements

The Department of Homeland Security is watching what you say on social media.

This illustration was created using MindStudio.

Editor’s note: We don’t typically cover national news, but more than half our readers find us through Facebook, and it’s important for them to understand the rules are changing.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has stepped up efforts to monitor social media posts about Immigration and Customs Enforcement, issuing hundreds of administrative subpoenas to major technology companies in recent months in an attempt to identify the people behind anonymous accounts.

According to an article published Friday in The New York Times, the department sent subpoenas to Meta, Google, Reddit and Discord seeking names, email addresses, phone numbers and IP data for users who posted about ICE operations or shared the locations of agents in the field. The Times reported that it reviewed two subpoenas sent to Meta.

The article cited four anonymous sources described as former government officials and tech employees who were not authorized to speak publicly. The sources told the Times that Meta, Google and Reddit complied with some of the requests.

Unlike traditional search warrants, administrative subpoenas do not require approval from a judge. They are issued directly by federal agencies under authority granted by Congress. In the past, their use was often associated with investigations involving serious crimes.

Administrative subpoenas are not self-enforcing. A company that receives one can challenge it in court by moving to quash the subpoena or by responding to an agency’s motion to compel, according to Jackson Lewis, a San Francisco–based employment law firm. If challenged, the agency must show that the subpoena was issued in good faith and for purposes authorized by law.

Earlier this month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Northern California sent a letter to Meta, Google, Amazon, Apple, Discord, Microsoft and Reddit urging the companies to challenge the subpoenas in court and to notify affected users.

“We urge you to use your immense resources to defend user privacy in court, if necessary,” the letter stated. “These steps are not only the right thing to do, they are in line with the existing promises you have made to defend user privacy.”

The use of administrative subpoenas more broadly has increased in recent years. During the first six months of 2025, Google received 28,622 subpoenas, an 84 percent increase from five years earlier. Meta received 14,520 subpoenas, up 42 percent over the same period.

In a statement on its website, Google said it “carefully review[s] each request to make sure it satisfies applicable laws. If a request asks for too much information, we try to narrow it, and in some cases we object to producing any information at all.”

Meta said it maintains a dedicated Law Enforcement Response Team that “reviews and evaluates every government request for user data individually, whether the request was submitted related to an emergency or through legal process obtained by law enforcement or national security authorities,” and ensures that requests are consistent with applicable law and company policies.

DHS officials have defended the use of administrative subpoenas as a lawful tool necessary to protect ICE personnel and prevent interference with enforcement operations.