The Government Is Unmasking Its Critics. No Judge Required.

The pattern is consistent enough that it can no longer be called a coincidence. Someone posts criticism of the Trump administration online. Weeks or months later, a federal subpoena lands at a tech company demanding that person's identity, location history, and communications. No court has approved the demand. No judge has reviewed whether the government has grounds. The target often learns what happened only after their data has already been handed over — if they learn at all. And when a target fights back and a judge looks poised to rule on whether the practice is legal, the government withdraws the subpoena. Then it starts again somewhere else.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement on April 22, 2026, seeking records about the administrative subpoena program being used to unmask online critics. The suit is a records action — the government has refused to turn over documents that would show the full scale of the program. What's already documented, across multiple cases and multiple plaintiffs, is disturbing enough.

The Legal Architecture

Administrative subpoenas are an old tool with a narrow purpose. Agencies can issue them without judicial approval to gather information in the course of investigations — originally designed for regulatory enforcement, not criminal surveillance of political speech. DHS and ICE have been using a customs enforcement statute as the legal hook, issuing these subpoenas to Google, Meta, and other platforms to demand the identities and data of account holders. No probable cause. No warrant. No neutral magistrate decides whether the demand is appropriate before it goes out the door.

That alone would be alarming. The practice becomes something different when the targets are people whose primary documented activity is posting criticism of the government online.

The Amandla Thomas-Johnson Case

One documented case involves Amandla Thomas-Johnson, a Ph.D. candidate. ICE issued a subpoena to Google for her account data. Google complied, and ICE received the information. Thomas-Johnson was, it emerged, an ICE target. The mechanics of that case illustrate a structural problem that the EFF separately flagged in a complaint to state attorneys general on April 14, 2026: Google's "simultaneous notice" practice.

When Google receives a government demand for user data, it notifies the user and discloses the data on the same day. Simultaneously. That practice eliminates the window a user would otherwise have to go to court and contest the demand before their information is transferred. By the time a target learns the government wants their data, the government already has it. The legal right to challenge the subpoena exists in theory; in practice, it arrives too late to matter.

A Canadian Citizen, Targeted for Posts He Made Abroad

The case that may most starkly illustrate the scope of what the administration considers fair game involves a Canadian citizen referred to in court filings as John Doe. He has not been in the United States since 2015. He is not a U.S. person. He lives in Canada. But he posted online criticism of the Trump administration — specifically regarding the killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis. DHS issued a subpoena to Google demanding his location history, browsing records, and communications.

The ACLU of D.C. and ACLU of Northern California filed suit on his behalf on May 4, 2026. The case raises a question that the government has apparently not felt the need to answer: Under what theory does the United States government have legal authority to demand the private data of a foreign national living outside the country who has posted criticism of American law enforcement online?

"The Trump administration is illegally targeting online critics just because it doesn't like what they're posting. That sets a dangerous and terrifying precedent." — Jake Snow, ACLU

The Withdrawal Pattern

The New York Times and other outlets have reported hundreds of similar demands sent to social media platforms since the beginning of Trump's second term. But the number, significant as it is, may be less revealing than the behavior that follows when a subpoena is challenged in court.

In multiple cases, when a target has pushed back legally and a judge has appeared ready to rule on whether these demands are constitutional, the government has withdrawn the subpoena. Not because it agreed the demand was improper. Not because it no longer wanted the information. But because a court ruling — any ruling — would create precedent. It would establish, in binding legal terms, either that the government has this authority or that it does not. The administration appears to prefer the ambiguity. Claim authority, issue the demand, get the data if possible, retreat if challenged, then repeat.

"Agencies should not be able to first claim that they have the legal authority to unmask critics and then run from court." — EFF Deputy Legal Director

The withdrawal strategy is legally sophisticated and constitutionally corrosive. Each time the government retreats before a ruling, it preserves the threat. The next target, reading about prior cases, knows that the government can demand their data, that the company may hand it over immediately, and that even if they fight, the government will disappear from court before any definitive ruling arrives. The chilling effect is the point.

What the Records Would Show

The EFF's lawsuit against DHS and ICE, filed April 22, 2026, is a FOIA action. The organization wants documents showing: how many administrative subpoenas have been issued for the data of online critics, what legal authorities have been invoked, what internal guidance governs the program, and what oversight — if any — exists. The government has not complied. The suit is the attempt to force disclosure through litigation that the administration has apparently decided to resist.

Without those records, the full scale of the program remains unknown. What is documented — across the Thomas-Johnson case, the Canadian citizen case, and the pattern of hundreds of demands reported by the Times — is a program that operates without judicial oversight, targets speech rather than criminal conduct, and retreats from courts before any judge can call it what it is.

That is not a program that believes it is operating lawfully. It is a program that believes it can continue operating as long as no court is allowed to say otherwise.