ACLU and EFF Demand Records After ICE’s 'Unmasking' Subpoenas Target Anonymous Critics

Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, several major tech companies report a sharp rise in administrative subpoenas from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seeking user-identifying data. These so-called "unmasking subpoenas" request names, email addresses, phone numbers and other identifiers without judicial approval, and companies including Google, Reddit, Discord and Meta say they have received hundreds of such demands in recent months.

Why Civil Liberties Groups Are Suing

Civil-rights organizations argue many requests appear aimed at anonymous users who criticized ICE or disclosed information about ICE operations—activity typically protected by the First Amendment. Historically, DHS has used administrative subpoenas to probe serious crimes such as child trafficking; advocates say the new pattern extends well beyond those traditional investigative uses and risks chilling lawful speech.

FOIA Requests and Lawsuits

To learn more, the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in February seeking records about the agencies' use of unmasking subpoenas. According to the ACLU, ICE has not complied with that request. After the agency allegedly failed to respond, the ACLU filed suit to compel disclosure.

Separately, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued in federal court after DHS and ICE reportedly ignored another FOIA request seeking the same types of records. In its filing and public statements, EFF warned that administrative subpoenas that bypass judicial review are "dangerous" and argued the government appears to recognize their legal fragility.

Examples And Impact

The ACLU of Pennsylvania has represented two Montgomery County residents whose identifying data were sought last year. One individual runs the Montco Community Watch Instagram and Facebook pages, which monitor ICE activity. The other was notified by Google that DHS sought his identifying information after he emailed a government prosecutor urging "common sense and decency" in an immigration case involving an Afghan man who could face lethal harm if deported to Taliban-controlled territory. When challenged in court, DHS withdrew both subpoenas.

"The government is taking more liberties than they used to," said Steve Loney, senior supervising attorney at ACLU Pennsylvania. By avoiding judicial review, the government places the burden on private individuals to sue to protect their rights.

Transparency And The Public Interest

Because notification of subpoenas is often left to the discretion of tech companies, the full scope of unmasking requests remains unclear. "The handful of litigated cases may be just the tip of the iceberg," said Ari Shapell, an attorney with ACLU Pennsylvania. Advocates say public disclosure is necessary so the public can evaluate the legal basis DHS and ICE rely on—and to determine whether those powers are being used to punish or silence critics.

"DHS and ICE should not assert the authority to unmask critics and then avoid court scrutiny when those subpoenas are challenged," said Aaron Mackey, EFF deputy legal director. The public deserves to know what laws the agencies believe permit issuing subpoenas that chill speech.

The litigation seeks records, policy documents and communications that would show how often agencies have used unmasking subpoenas, the legal rationales they cite, and whether internal guidance limits or permits targeting based on speech. The outcome could clarify the reach of DHS and ICE's investigative powers and the protections available to anonymous online speakers.