Google provided user data to ICE without a judge's approval

Google handed over personal and financial data to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal law enforcement agency, in response to an administrative subpoena that was not approved by a judge. According to a report by The Intercept, the search and advertising technology company provided the agency with the personal details of Amandla Thomas-Johnson, a British student and journalist. Thomas-Johnson had briefly attended a pro-Palestinian protest in 2024 while studying at Cornell University in New York.

The personal and financial data disclosed by Google included Thomas-Johnson’s usernames, physical addresses, an itemized list of services associated with his account, IP addresses, phone numbers, subscriber identities, and credit card and bank account numbers. The administrative subpoena—a legal demand issued by a federal agency without judicial approval—reportedly included a gag order. Thomas-Johnson stated that the demand for his data arrived within two hours of Cornell University informing him that the U.S. government had revoked his student visa.

Unlike court orders, tech companies are under no obligation to provide user data after receiving an administrative subpoena. These demands cannot compel companies to turn over the contents of emails, online searches, or location data, but they allow federal agencies to request metadata to de-anonymize accounts without judicial oversight. The U.S. government is using these subpoenas to target critics of the Trump administration. In response, the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sent a letter last week to several tech companies urging them to challenge these demands. The EFF stated that, based on its contact with targeted users, it is deeply concerned that tech companies are failing to challenge unlawful surveillance and defend user privacy and speech. The group called on companies to insist that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the parent agency of ICE, seek court confirmation that their demands are not unlawful or unconstitutional prior to disclosing any user information.

Thomas-Johnson, a student and journalist, emphasized the need to evaluate how to oppose these surveillance practices. He told The Intercept, “we need to think very hard about what resistance looks like under these conditions…where government and Big Tech know so much about us, can track us, can imprison, can destroy us in a variety of ways.”

Why it matters

This case highlights the growing use of administrative subpoenas by U.S. agencies to bypass judicial oversight when demanding private user data from tech companies, particularly regarding critics of the administration.