The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is increasingly relying on a little-known legal authority to surveil, intimidate, and investigate critics of the Trump administration, according to a disturbing report published by The Washington Post.
At the center of the controversy is the use of administrative subpoenas — powerful tools that allow federal agencies to demand vast amounts of personal data without judicial oversight, probable cause, or even notifying the person being targeted.
Experts warn that these subpoenas are quietly becoming a mechanism to chill political speech and erode First Amendment protections.
What Are Administrative Subpoenas — and Why Are They Dangerous?
Administrative subpoenas allow federal agencies to compel third parties — such as technology companies, banks, or employers — to hand over sensitive personal information without approval from a judge or a grand jury.
Unlike traditional subpoenas:
- They require no showing of probable cause
- They are issued internally by agencies
- Targets are often never informed
- There is little meaningful opportunity for oversight or appeal
DHS issues thousands of these subpoenas every year, according to experts cited by the Post. The scope of information they can extract includes financial data, online activity, location records, and identifying documents.
How One Email Triggered a Federal Investigation
Jon, a 67-year-old retired US citizen living in Philadelphia, learned just how sweeping these powers can be.
In January, Jon sent a short, respectful email to DHS prosecutor Joseph Dernbach, urging him to reconsider an attempt to deport an Afghan asylum seeker who faced a credible risk of being killed by the Taliban if returned home.
In his message, Jon implored Dernbach to “apply principles of common sense and decency” and warned against “playing Russian roulette” with the man’s life.
Five hours later, Jon received a notice from Google stating that DHS had issued a subpoena for information tied to his account.
What Information Did DHS Demand?
Google initially refused to provide Jon with a copy of the subpoena and instructed him to request it directly from DHS. What followed was what Jon described as a “maddening” maze of dead phone numbers, answering machines, and unhelpful staff.
Only after a Washington Post reporter intervened did Google finally provide the document.
The scope of DHS’s request was breathtaking.
The subpoena sought:
- The date, time, and duration of all Jon’s online sessions
- Every IP address and physical location associated with his account
- A list of all Google services he had used
- Any alternate usernames or email addresses
- The date his account was created
- His credit card information
- His driver’s license number
- His Social Security number
The request covered months of activity and amounted to a full digital profile of his life.
Why Was Jon Targeted?
Weeks after the email, two DHS agents appeared at Jon’s home and questioned him about the message.
The agents reportedly acknowledged that Jon had not clearly violated any law. However, they said the prosecutor may have perceived the phrase “Russian roulette” — combined with references to the Taliban — as a potential threat.
Jon insists the message was plainly metaphorical and humanitarian in nature.
“I exercised my right to contact my government,”
he said.
“For that, I am being investigated, intimidated, and targeted.”
Do Tech Companies Push Back?
Usually, no. Google told the Post that it nearly always complies with administrative subpoenas unless legally prohibited. Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon gave similar responses.
In Jon’s case, Google said it had not yet responded to DHS — though it declined to explain why. With assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Jon filed a court motion this week challenging the subpoena. Civil liberties advocates say most people never realize their data has been handed over.
A Broader Pattern of Political Surveillance
Jon’s case is not isolated. Transparency reports reviewed by the Post show that administrative subpoenas surged during the first six months of Trump’s second term, particularly in cases involving protest activity and political dissent.
In March, DHS issued subpoenas to Columbia University seeking information on a student involved in pro-Palestinian protests whom it sought to deport. In July, Harvard University received what its lawyers called “unprecedented” subpoenas demanding broad employment records.
In Septembe,r DHS used subpoenas to try to identify Instagram users posting about ICE raids in Los Angeles, and in October, DHS demanded detailed personal data on roughly 7,000 healthcare workers in Minnesota after staff protested ICE activity inside a hospital. In each case, the activity being targeted was protected political speech.
How This Chills Free Speech
Civil liberties experts say administrative subpoenas are uniquely suited to intimidation. If criticizing a government official can lead to secret data collection, federal agents appearing at your home and years of digital records being scrutinized. Then free speech becomes theoretical rather than real.
“These subpoenas are designed to sow fear,”
one expert told the Post.
“They pressure companies into compliance and users into silence.”
Another Tool in an Expanding Arsenal
The use of administrative subpoenas comes amid broader concerns that the Trump administration is Compiling secret databases of protesters, Targeting individuals for deportation based on political speech and Asserting authority to conduct raids without judicial warrants. Viewed in this context, administrative subpoenas appear to be another quiet but potent weapon — one that operates largely out of public view.
Why This Matters
“In a democracy,”
Jon said,
“contacting your government about things you feel strongly about is a fundamental right.”
If that right can be met with surveillance, intimidation, and secret subpoenas, then the line between national security enforcement and political repression becomes dangerously thin.
For civil liberties advocates, the issue is not just about one man or one email — it is about whether dissent itself is becoming grounds for investigation in the United States.
