DHS Reportedly Pressures Social Media Companies for Data on Trump Critics
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is allegedly pressuring social media companies to share information about users who criticize President Donald Trump or his administration. According to reporting from Tech Crunch, the agency is also seeking data on individuals who operate anonymous ICE-watchdog accounts. The DHS is reportedly using administrative subpoenas to compel social media platforms to disclose user information, a practice that has sparked significant privacy and free speech concerns.
Legal Loopholes and Corporate Compliance
Steve Stransky, an adjunct professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, explained that third-party organizations, including social media companies, are not legally obligated to comply with administrative subpoenas. "Unless there's a separate court process or separate order from a judge requiring the third party, the social media company, to comply with the administrative subpoena," they can refuse, Stransky noted. However, some companies have chosen to cooperate voluntarily.
A notable example involves Google, which provided information about a 67-year-old retiree to federal authorities after the user emailed a prosecutor about an immigration case. Federal officials subsequently visited the retiree's home following a notice from Google regarding the subpoena. Although the DHS later withdrew the subpoena in this instance, the case highlights the potential reach of such government requests.
Privacy Rights and Terms of Service
The idea of government monitoring of social media activity for political criticism is unsettling, yet it is not entirely illegal under current laws. Stransky emphasized that social media terms of service typically state that users do not have a privacy right. "The Supreme Court has held that individuals generally don't have a privacy interest in data that they share with third parties," he said. This principle means that communications sent through platforms like social media or internet service providers may not be considered private.
Dave Chronister, CEO of Parameter Security, observed that government review of social media posts has been occurring for over a decade, particularly in visa and immigration contexts. "But what I've been seeing a lot is they're starting to use administrative [subpoenas] to go after anybody that's critical," Chronister added. Users effectively surrender privacy rights when they agree to a platform's terms of use, which often include clauses allowing data disclosure to the government via subpoenas or warrants.
Stransky pointed out that these terms are frequently updated to align with changing policies from political administrations and the companies themselves. "You probably receive a couple emails a month that say, 'We've updated our terms, please read them here,' and nobody reads them, right? But that's where these social media companies are setting forth the process for when and how they will disclose your data to the government," he explained.
First Amendment Implications and Government Priorities
Does this practice violate free speech protections under the First Amendment? Stransky clarified that the government's position is typically that its actions are not related to free speech activities. "Particularly when we're talking about U.S. persons, the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, specifically prohibit the federal government from maintaining records on individuals that are otherwise related to a protected First Amendment activity, unless there is specific law enforcement, statutory investigatory authorities behind that," he stated.
However, the government has increasingly relied on authorities related to protecting federal officials or officer safety. If an online statement appears to threaten a federal officer, it could be treated as a crime. Paul Gowder, a law professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, noted that "the government taking adverse action against people because of their political ideology is classic First Amendment no-no," but the involvement of private parties like social media companies complicates the issue.
Despite gathering social media data, experts suggest the federal government has limited resources to act on it. "While the government has lots of surveillance resources, it doesn't actually have lots of doing-harm-to-people resources," Gowder said. Undocumented individuals and immigrants may face higher risks of retaliation compared to American citizens. Stransky added that enforcement priorities under administrations from Obama to Trump have focused on terrorism, cybersecurity, human trafficking, and narcotics prevention, rather than monitoring Trump-critical social media movements.
Surveillance Realities and User Recommendations
Stransky acknowledged an increase in such enforcement over the past decade, though the probability of action against average users remains low. For those concerned, options are limited. "The other piece of this that's kind of grim is ... the government already has access to so much social media data through any number of ways," Gowder said, citing data brokers and public platforms like LinkedIn, YouTube, and Reddit.
Chronister emphasized that avoiding social media is the only sure way to prevent government access to one's posts. "This is the terms and service, and I think this is something that we've been dealing with as a civilization for the past 20 years — we sign up for these platforms, and the only way you can use these platforms is to agree to their terms of service," he said. Once data is on a company's servers, it can be used in ways that may be weaponized by the government.
Gowder also highlighted initiatives like Border Patrol searching phones at the border as additional sources of social media data for the government. "We sort of live in a surveillance economy, and it turns out that when we spend decades handing over massive amounts of data to companies that don't care about us for the purpose of that data being monetized in exchange for services, we really ought not to be terribly surprised when an authoritarian government realizes that there are a bunch of easy ways for it to hoover that in," he remarked.
For vulnerable individuals, silence on social media may be prudent, but Gowder encourages others to speak out. "I actually think that, right now ... we've got a regime in the White House that has authoritarian dispositions. I think there are people in the White House who would love to run an authoritarian regime," he said. "I think that it's actually more important for people to be brave and to speak out and to signal to their fellow citizens that they're not alone in their opposition to what's going on."
