Big Tech as Government's Eye: U.S. Social Media Surveillance Requests at Record Highs

The Scale of the Problem

According to a March 2025 analysis by Proton — based on publicly available corporate transparency reports — the U.S. government sent nearly 500,000 data requests to Google and Meta alone in the 12-month period ending in the first half of 2024. That figure exceeds the combined total submitted by all other members of the so-called "Fourteen Eyes" intelligence-sharing alliance.

The trajectory over the past decade is steep. From late 2014 through early 2024, according to Proton's analysis of company transparency reports, the number of user accounts shared with U.S. law enforcement by Google rose 530%; at Meta, the figure surged 675%; and at Apple, it climbed 621%. Collectively, those three companies handed over details on 3.16 million accounts in just under a decade, according to Proton's data.

Those numbers do not capture requests made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which are largely classified. FISA content requests to Meta have increased 2,171% since 2014; those to Google have risen 594%, according to Proton's analysis. Apple reported a 274% increase in such requests between 2018 and 2023.

DHS Subpoenas and Anti-ICE Speech

Within this broader trend, the Department of Homeland Security has added a new dimension: the use of administrative subpoenas to unmask Americans based on their political speech. According to a February 13, 2026, report by The New York Times — based on accounts from four government officials and tech company employees — Google, Reddit, Discord, and Meta received hundreds of DHS administrative subpoenas in recent months. The subpoenas sought names, email addresses, telephone numbers, and other identifying information behind social media accounts that criticized U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or posted the locations of ICE agents.

The New York Times reported that Google, Meta, and Reddit complied with some of the requests. The Times said it reviewed two subpoenas sent to Meta in the prior six months.

Administrative subpoenas differ from search warrants in a critical way: they are not reviewed or approved by a judge. Under U.S. law, a tech company that receives one can choose to comply or refuse — but if it refuses, the government must take the company to court to enforce it.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), in an open letter dated February 13, 2026, called the subpoenas "unlawful" and cited evidence that DHS itself acknowledged their questionable legal standing: when the ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU of Pennsylvania challenged several of the subpoenas in federal court on behalf of targeted users, DHS withdrew them rather than defend them before a judge.

The EFF sent its letter to Amazon, Apple, Discord, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Reddit, Snap, TikTok, and X, urging all of them to require court intervention before complying with any DHS administrative subpoena.

A Documented Case: Email to a DHS Official

The American Civil Liberties Union documented one case in detail. In a press release dated February 10, 2026, the ACLU described the situation of a Philadelphia-area man — identified in court filings as "Jon Doe" — who sent an email to a DHS official asking them to apply what he described as "principles of common sense and decency" in the treatment of an Afghan asylum seeker. Doe sent the email after reading about the case in The Washington Post.

Within four hours of that email, DHS issued an administrative subpoena to Google seeking information about Doe's Gmail account. Approximately two weeks after being notified, Doe was visited at his home by two DHS agents and a local police officer.

Doe challenged the subpoena in federal court, arguing it violated his First Amendment rights and was issued in violation of federal law. DHS withdrew the subpoena after the ACLU filed a motion to quash.

"Questioning the government without fear of retaliation is a sign of a healthy democracy," Doe said in the ACLU press release. "Agents requesting information from your email provider and showing up to your door after you express your opinion is not."

The Legal Architecture Behind the Requests

Two main legal mechanisms drive government data collection from tech platforms.

The first is standard law enforcement process — subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants issued through criminal or civil proceedings. These require varying degrees of judicial approval depending on the type of request. The EFF noted that in the first half of 2025, Google received 28,622 total subpoenas and Meta received 14,520, according to their respective transparency reports — though neither company breaks out which of those came from DHS specifically.

The second is FISA, including Section 702, which allows U.S. intelligence agencies to collect data on foreign surveillance targets — but which can also sweep in communications of Americans who contact those targets. Section 702 requests are not individually reviewed by judges. A 2024 analysis by the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that FISA-based requests are growing faster than standard law enforcement requests at every major platform.

Steve Loney, a senior supervising attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, told The New York Times in February 2026: "The government is taking more liberties than they used to. It's a whole other level of frequency and lack of accountability."

DHS's Stated Position

Asked by The New York Times about the subpoenas, DHS said it had "broad administrative subpoena authority" but did not respond to specific questions. In court proceedings, DHS lawyers argued they were seeking information to help keep ICE agents safe in the field.

The agency has not publicly disclosed the total number of administrative subpoenas it has issued targeting social media users, and there is no federal requirement that it do so.

The Global Context

The United States is not alone in increasing government data requests to tech platforms, but it leads the world by volume. According to Proton's March 2025 analysis of corporate transparency filings, European Union member states have also seen rapid increases — with EU government requests up more than 1,300% since 2014 — but their absolute numbers remain far smaller than those from U.S. agencies.

The U.S. and India submit the most requests to social media companies, according to The New York Times' February 2026 reporting, which cited transparency reports published by multiple tech companies showing that requests have climbed over years from both governments.

Meta's H1 2026 Integrity Report, published in March 2026, noted that government data request figures for the second half of 2025 would be published in the following reporting period due to a shift in Meta's semiannual reporting schedule. That means the full scope of DHS subpoena activity in late 2025 and early 2026 has not yet been publicly disclosed by major platforms.

What Comes Next

Civil liberties organizations have called on Congress to require judicial oversight for all DHS administrative subpoenas seeking user data from social media companies. As of April 2026, no such legislation has been enacted.

The EFF's open letter outlined three specific requests to tech companies: require a court order before complying with any DHS subpoena; give users maximum advance notice when they are a subpoena target; and resist government gag orders that would prevent companies from notifying targeted users. The EFF noted that while many platforms have promised to notify users, there have been documented cases where notification did not occur, effectively denying users the chance to challenge the request in court.

Whether any platform publicly commits to those standards — or whether litigation forces a ruling on the constitutional limits of DHS's administrative subpoena authority — remains to be seen.