Lawmakers demand to know what user data tech firms handed to DHS

Members of Congress are pressing Meta and other major tech companies to disclose exactly what user information they provided to the Department of Homeland Security after the agency issued subpoenas for accounts that track or comment on Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The letters, sent to platform executives on February 26, seek a detailed accounting of the types of data turned over to DHS, the number of accounts affected, whether users received notice, and the legal authorities under which the requests were made. Lawmakers said the inquiry aims to establish whether government surveillance is reaching people who monitor or criticize ICE, including journalists, legal advocates, and community organizers.

The request follows disclosures that DHS issued subpoenas to multiple companies seeking records related to accounts that report on ICE activity and post commentary about enforcement actions. Subpoenas can compel companies to hand over account identifiers, metadata, location information, IP logs, direct messages, and other records depending on their scope and the legal authority invoked. Lawmakers are seeking clarity on which of those categories were produced in this instance and whether the agency relied on judicial warrants, administrative subpoenas, or other means.

Privacy and civil liberties experts say the stakes are immediate. When platforms disclose account details to law enforcement without notice or a court order, the result can be the unmasking of activists and sources, the shutdown of reporting channels, and a chilling effect on speech about immigration enforcement. Lawmakers framing the letters emphasized the need for transparency about how frequently agencies use broad data requests to investigate social-media activity around contentious public policy issues.

Tech companies regularly publish transparency reports that disclose the volume of government requests in aggregated ranges, but those reports often do not identify the legal basis for individual requests or reveal whether companies provided content-level records or only limited metadata. The congressional letters ask companies to bridge that gap by providing account-level counts and a description of the legal process that produced each disclosure.

Meta is specifically named in the inquiries; lawmakers also addressed their letters to other platforms that operate public-facing accounts covering ICE. The companies have legal obligations to comply with valid subpoenas and warrants, and they must weigh those obligations against user-privacy commitments and free-expression concerns. How firms navigated that balance in responding to DHS subpoenas is now the focus of the congressional requests.

The outcome could shape both platform policies and congressional oversight of how federal agencies monitor online speech about immigration enforcement. If companies confirm broad production of identifying information tied to critics of ICE, lawmakers may push for tighter safeguards, changes to notice practices, or new limits on administrative data requests. For users who follow or comment on ICE, the immediate impact is clear: the answers will determine whether routine online monitoring can lead to government scrutiny or enforcement actions without users' knowledge.

Tech firms have not released full details of their responses to the letters. Lawmakers have asked for prompt disclosures so they can assess whether current legal controls and corporate practices protect civil liberties while allowing legitimate law enforcement inquiries.