Google and Meta are challenging some requests from US immigration authorities for information about social media users who have criticised the Trump administration's immigration policies.
The companies are also changing how they handle government demands amid concerns among employees, users and lawmakers about the disclosure of personal information.
According to a Wall Street Journal report published on 29 October, executives at major technology firms are increasingly concerned about how their decisions could be examined if Democrats gain control of Congress in November's midterm elections.
Some lawmakers have already questioned the companies about their responses to requests from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The companies are now facing difficult decisions over how to respond to government investigations while protecting customer privacy and avoiding conflict with the administration.
Google and Meta Challenge ICE Subpoenas Over User Information
One of the central issues is the growing use of administrative subpoenas by DHS. Unlike judicial search warrants, administrative subpoenas can be issued directly by authorised federal officials under statutory powers, without first obtaining approval from a judge or going through a grand jury.
They can seek identifying information such as account holders' names, addresses, telephone numbers and IP addresses, potentially revealing who operates an otherwise anonymous social media account.
The distinction matters because companies can question the legal basis of administrative subpoenas, seek clarification or challenge demands in court instead of automatically complying with every request.
However, ignoring a legally enforceable subpoena can carry consequences. For affected users, the opportunity to challenge a request can depend on whether they are notified in time and can obtain legal representation.
Google has faced several disputes over the scope of information sought by federal authorities. In one Minnesota case, DHS requested subscriber details and IP addresses associated with YouTube channels, including those belonging to commentator Megyn Kelly and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Court records cited by the Journal show that Google questioned whether the legal provision used by the agency was appropriate for the request.
In a separate North Carolina court dispute, Google described a Justice Department demand as 'a sweeping grant of almost unlimited subpoena power'. The company has also faced questions over requests involving individuals who criticised government immigration policies online.
A Google spokesperson said its procedures are intended to protect user privacy while meeting legal obligations, adding that it pushes back against requests considered overbroad.
ICE Data Requests Raise Questions About Big Tech Compliance
The scale of government demands provides further context. Google's transparency report records 28,622 US subpoenas for user information between January and June 2025, followed by another 27,521 between July and December.
These figures cover requests from US government authorities generally, rather than ICE alone, and should not be interpreted as a count of immigration-related investigations.
The company has also made changes to its internal procedures. It now tracks administrative subpoenas separately after employees raised concerns about how these requests were being monitored. Google has also extended the time users have to respond when notified about demands for their information.
Meta has faced similar questions over requests targeting anonymous Instagram accounts. In one case, the company notified a user that it intended to proceed with a subpoena.
The individual challenged the demand through legal representation, after which DHS withdrew it. More recently, Meta's law-enforcement team decided not to respond to a grand jury subpoena concerning user speech, according to people familiar with the decision.
The Journal also reported that DHS has increasingly worked with the Justice Department to issue grand jury subpoenas, which carry greater legal consequences for companies that fail to comply.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also obtained court documents and internal DHS correspondence showing how Meta questioned at least one request for the identity of an Instagram user.
Politicians and Platforms Step up Oversight Calls
In September, Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Pramila Jayapal asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate federal agencies' use of subpoena powers for domestic surveillance.
Other platforms are reviewing their own procedures. Reddit says it routinely challenges requests that threaten privacy or civil rights and notifies users whenever possible. TikTok has strengthened its disclosures about informing US users when authorities seek their information, unless legal restrictions or exceptional circumstances prevent notification.
The government, meanwhile, maintains that its operations comply with applicable law. The White House has also argued that violence, threats and conspiracies to impede law enforcement operations are not protected by the First Amendment.
The dispute therefore centres not only on what information authorities can request, but also on how companies assess the legal basis for those demands and protect users who may be affected.
For technology companies, the consequences could extend beyond individual legal disputes. Any future congressional inquiry could examine not just whether information was disclosed, but how requests were reviewed, whether users received adequate notice and what steps companies took when they believed demands exceeded their legal basis.
