Tech companies push back against broad ICE demands for user data

Administrative subpoenas account for many federal requests for user data

Google, Meta and other technology companies are pushing back against broad Immigration and Customs Enforcement demands for user data as the Trump administration expands its use of subpoenas. Corporate executives anticipate Democrats will gain more power in Congress after the midterms, and some lawmakers are already asking why tech companies handed over sensitive user information.

The response combines legal challenges with delays. Companies including Meta and Google have pushed back against what they view as overbroad DHS demands for information and delayed some responses, according to current and former employees, executives and advisers. Board members and top executives inside big tech companies are trying to insulate their firms from potential future Democratic-led congressional investigations and respond to user and employee concerns, while still placating the Trump administration, people familiar with the matter said.

Over the past year, ICE, an agency within DHS, has scoured Google, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Reddit, TikTok and X for speech it deems a threat to federal agents or enforcement actions. Legal filings show the agency has asked Google for information about certain YouTube channels, Meta for information about anonymous accounts that post about immigration-enforcement activity and other social-media companies for customers’ personal information. The platforms often collect names, addresses, IP addresses and phone numbers.

Many of the requests have been made using administrative subpoenas. Unlike judicial search warrants or grand jury subpoenas, they are issued directly by ICE officials without prior review or approval by a judge. Former Democratic and Republican officials described the surge as a departure from standard federal practice. Some companies, including Meta and Google, have noticed DHS in recent weeks increasingly working with the Justice Department to send grand jury subpoenas, which carry higher legal penalties for noncompliance, to compel tech firms to share user information, people familiar with the matter said.

Google received a record number of subpoenas from the U.S. government — about 28,600 — between January and June 2025, which included Trump’s early months in office, and a similar number in the second half of that year, according to company transparency reports. The requests have been far-reaching, and the volume has prompted internal questions about how Google tracks and discloses government demands.

In a Minnesota case, DHS subpoenaed Google for “subscriber information, subscriber names, and IP address information” associated with certain YouTube channels, including those for Megyn Kelly and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Google privately pushed back, arguing in an April email that the summons DHS used was designed for investigating imports of prohibited items. Its legal investigations support team wrote that Google “does not have sufficient information to evaluate the legal basis for issuance of the subpoena,” including whether the subpoena related to importation of prohibited merchandise.

A Google spokesperson said the company’s processes for handling law-enforcement requests are designed to protect users’ privacy while meeting Google’s legal obligations, noting that they “push back against those that are overbroad.”

In another instance, according to court records, DHS requested that Google turn over personal information about a Canadian citizen living outside the U.S., including his name and addresses. The man later sued DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, alleging the subpoena was an attempt to chill free speech after he criticized the Trump administration online.

Google also opposed one subpoena in a North Carolina court, in what legal experts say represents its most forceful attempt yet to push back against the administration’s expanded use of subpoena power. Google described the Justice Department’s request in court filings as “a sweeping grant of almost unlimited subpoena power.”

The sharp increase in requests, as well as media reports detailing how the Trump administration was using administrative subpoenas to target critics, led to internal dissent from Google employees who complained the company was failing its users by handing over data. In February, the Washington Post reported that DHS had asked Google for the identity of a Pennsylvania retiree who had emailed a federal prosecutor about an immigration case and subsequently received a visit from federal agents. Google employees took to internal message boards with questions about the case, according to people familiar with the conversations. Employees asked why Google had notified the user about the administrative subpoena from a “noreply” email address they could not respond to, and what the company’s policy was for giving user information to the government.

DHS had tracked down the man on its own, without help from Google user data, and ultimately dropped its request after the user found legal representation and pushed back in court. Late last year, Google updated its custom portal for law-enforcement requests as administrative subpoenas ballooned and employees realized they could not properly track them, people familiar with the matter said. Google now monitors administrative subpoenas separately and has lengthened the time users have to respond.

Meta disclosed that it produced some data in 88.8% of cases in which it received U.S. government requests between July and December of last year. Court documents and internal DHS correspondence obtained by the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation show Meta questioning at least one DHS request for an Instagram user’s identity last year. Meta later notified the user that it planned to move forward with the subpoena, and the user, through their own legal representation, filed a motion to quash it. DHS ultimately withdrew the request.

In recent weeks, members of Meta’s law-enforcement team decided not to respond to a grand jury subpoena concerning user speech on its platform, hoping the federal government would drop the matter, according to people familiar with the decision.

DHS has also sought information about users on X, Reddit and TikTok who have been critical of immigration actions, according to people close to the companies.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) sent a September letter to the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the acting head of the Government Accountability Office, asking them to curtail federal agencies’ use of subpoena power for domestic surveillance. They accused ICE’s investigative arm of using subpoenas to “surveil, intimidate, and suppress the free speech of ordinary citizens and even the free press.”

Tech companies will at times request clarifications from DHS rather than comply with information requests straight away, people involved in that correspondence said. When that happens, the agency often allows the requests to expire without following up, they said.

Some top Meta executives have informally discussed how the company’s handling of subpoenas could leave it exposed to Democratic scrutiny if control of Congress flips, people familiar with the discussions said. Google executives have privately expressed similar concerns, as well as concerns that the Trump administration could retaliate by seeking even more user data if the company does not comply, people with knowledge of the discussions said. Google still faces antitrust cases brought by the federal government and does not want to draw extra attention, the people said. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D., Mich.), who co-launched an investigation into tech companies’ compliance with the requests earlier this year, said: “They need to be prepared to say, under oath, why they did what they did.”

Reddit said it “routinely” pushes back when requests are overly broad or threaten users’ privacy or civil rights and that it notifies users whenever possible so they can challenge a request. TikTok executives decided to amend the company’s privacy disclosures in mid-September, strengthening language about its practice of notifying U.S. users about legal requests related to them unless it is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances apply. X did not respond to requests for comment.

An ICE spokesperson said operations are “conducted in accordance with applicable law and policy.” A White House spokeswoman said the Trump administration supports all Americans’ constitutional rights, including freedom of speech. “Violence, threats, and conspiracies to impede law enforcement operations are not protected by the First Amendment,” said White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis.