On Feb. 13, 2026, reporting shows the Department of Homeland Security has expanded efforts to identify U.S. social media users who track or criticize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Over the past six months the department issued hundreds of administrative subpoenas to platforms including Google, Meta, Reddit and Discord seeking names, email addresses, phone numbers and other account data tied to anti‑ICE posts. Some companies complied with parts of the requests; others notified targeted users and gave them 10–14 days to challenge subpoenas in court. DHS officials say the steps are intended to protect ICE personnel in the field.
Key takeaways
- Since roughly August 2025 through February 2026, DHS issued hundreds of administrative subpoenas to multiple tech platforms requesting account data tied to criticism of ICE.
- Platforms named in reporting include Google, Meta (Facebook/Instagram), Reddit and Discord; Google, Meta and Reddit reportedly provided some information.
- At least two subpoenas to Meta from the last six months were reviewed by reporters, according to the source reporting the story.
- Some companies notified affected account holders and allowed 10–14 days to contest the government request in court before turning over data.
- DHS has invoked broad administrative subpoena authority and framed the requests as measures to protect the safety of ICE agents.
- Civil liberties advocates, including the ACLU, say the frequency and scope of requests marks an escalation and raises free‑speech and privacy concerns.
- No public record in the reporting links these requests to specific crimes against agents; exact counts and outcomes remain unclear.
Background
Administrative subpoenas are a long‑standing investigative tool used across U.S. federal agencies; they allow certain departments to request records from third parties without prior judicial approval. Historically, DHS components have used these authorities in immigration, cybersecurity and counterterrorism investigations. What changed in 2025–2026, as reported, is the scale and the focus on accounts that are critical of ICE or that document ICE movements.
ICE has been a flashpoint in U.S. domestic politics for years, drawing sustained criticism from immigrant‑rights groups and activists who track enforcement actions and sometimes publish locations or photographs of agents. Platforms hosting such content have navigated competing pressures: to protect user privacy and speech while responding to lawful government requests tied to officer safety or criminal investigations. Tech companies generally evaluate subpoenas case by case and invoke free‑speech or privacy defenses when appropriate.
Main event
According to people briefed on the matter, DHS sent hundreds of administrative subpoenas in recent months to major platforms seeking identifying information tied to accounts that post about ICE. The requests asked for real‑world identifiers — full names, email addresses, phone numbers and device fingerprints — for accounts that often used pseudonyms. Company responses varied: some complied with parts of the requests, others pushed back, and several informed targeted users so they could seek judicial review.
Reporters were shown two specific subpoenas sent to Meta within the last six months; those documents sought metadata and limited identifying details for accounts that publicly criticized ICE or flagged agent locations. Tech employees and company spokespeople described internal review processes that balance legal obligation and user privacy. Where companies provided notice, affected users generally had a 10–14 day window to ask a court to quash the subpoena before their data would be turned over.
Civil liberties lawyers say the volume of requests—and the department’s characterization of them as safety operations—represents a sharper posture toward online critics. Steve Loney, a senior supervising attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented people whose account information DHS sought, warned that the agency “is taking more liberties than they used to.” At the same time, DHS lawyers have defended the requests in filings and communications by saying the department is using its statutory subpoena powers to protect agents and support investigations.
Analysis & implications
Legally, the use of administrative subpoenas to compel third‑party platform data sits at the intersection of privacy law, First Amendment protections and administrative authority. Administrative subpoenas avoid the warrant requirement of criminal investigations but are supposed to be tethered to authorized administrative functions. Civil liberties experts contend that seeking identities of critics raises a risk of chilling lawful protest and reporting on immigration enforcement.
Operationally, DHS frames the requests as officer‑safety measures. If social posts provide precise locations of officers or details that could enable targeting, agencies can argue disclosure is necessary to prevent harm. Yet reporting to date does not establish a clear public‑record causal link between the particular posts targeted and documented attacks on agents, which complicates the government’s justificatory narrative.
For tech firms, complying with government demands brings legal exposure, reputational risk and user trust considerations. A pattern of routine compliance could prompt backlash from users and advocates and may increase calls for stronger statutory safeguards or judicial review for administrative demands. Conversely, denying or delaying production invites legal challenges and, in some cases, fines or enforcement actions if courts later find the subpoenas lawful.
Internationally, how U.S. agencies use administrative demands could set precedents for other governments seeking account data. The balance platforms strike here may influence global standards for responding to state requests that implicate political speech and public‑interest reporting.
| Platform | Reported Response | Notification to Users | Timeframe |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meta (Facebook/Instagram) | Some compliance reported | Yes; in some cases | Subpoenas seen within last 6 months |
| Some compliance reported | Varied | Requests received in recent months | |
| Some compliance reported | Varied | Requests received in recent months | |
| Discord | Requests received | Varied | Requests received in recent months |
The table summarizes reporting that multiple platforms received subpoenas and that company responses differed. Public detail on exact counts and the legal basis provided in each subpoena remains limited; platforms say they review requests and apply internal legal standards before producing data.
Reactions & quotes
Advocacy groups and legal advocates framed the development as a major privacy and free‑speech concern.
“The government is taking more liberties than they used to.”
Steve Loney, American Civil Liberties Union
Several company representatives emphasized routine review of government requests and the availability of legal challenge mechanisms for affected users.
“Companies review government demands before complying and, where possible, notify users so they can seek judicial review.”
Tech company spokespeople (aggregated paraphrase)
DHS responses described the department’s authority and framed the requests as linked to officer safety, while declining to provide further operational details in the reporting.
“The department has broad administrative subpoena authority to support missions that protect personnel and public safety.”
Department of Homeland Security (statement)
Unconfirmed
- The exact number of subpoenas DHS issued to each platform is not publicly confirmed beyond reporting that the count reached “hundreds.”
- There is no publicly verified evidence in the reporting linking specific social posts targeted by the subpoenas to documented attacks on ICE agents.
- Details about how produced data has been used operationally by DHS or ICE are not disclosed in the sources reviewed.
Bottom line
The reported push by DHS to identify people behind anti‑ICE accounts reflects a broader tension between public‑interest speech about immigration enforcement and government claims of protecting officers. While agencies cite safety concerns, the scale and pattern of administrative demands raise legal and democratic questions about oversight, transparency and the potential chilling effect on political expression.
Key next steps to watch: whether affected users bring and win court challenges that constrain the scope of administrative subpoenas; whether Congress or courts impose clearer limits or additional procedural safeguards; and whether platforms change notification practices or transparency reporting in response to concern from users and civil‑liberties groups.
Sources
- The New York Times — news report reviewed for this article (media).
- Department of Homeland Security — official newsroom and statements (official source).
- American Civil Liberties Union — civil liberties organization (advocacy/legal).