DHS Uses Obscure Customs Law to Demand User Data From Google, T-Mobile, and PayPal

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is leveraging an obscure customs statute to compel technology, telecommunications, and financial platforms to surrender private user data without judicial oversight. By serving administrative summonses under Section 1509 of Title 19 of the U.S. Code—a provision historically designed to audit import duties and commercial taxes—the agency has sought account records, communication logs, and financial information associated with journalists, news outlets, labor unions, and non-profit organizations.

The enforcement tactic gained scrutiny following federal efforts to gather account records tied to a January protest at a Minneapolis church where a local Immigration and Customs Enforcement official served as pastor. In February, federal prosecutors applied twice for judicial search warrants targeting the YouTube accounts of journalists Georgia Fort and Don Lemon, both of whom covered the event and face criminal charges. A federal judge rejected both warrant applications for failing to establish probable cause and insisted that the journalists be informed. Although prosecutors formally withdrew their warrant requests in late February, DHS subsequently issued an administrative summons directly to Google under 19 U.S.C. § 1509 to obtain Fort and Lemon’s YouTube account details, including IP addresses, login timestamps, and subscriber information.

Google refused to comply with the 1509 summons, informing DHS that the agency had failed to demonstrate any connection to a customs investigation. However, telecommunications provider T-Mobile complied with a separate administrative demand, turning over six months of communication logs for Fort that encompassed more than 10,000 phone calls and text messages. Fort’s legal representation was not alerted to the disclosure until mid-July, when government prosecutors delivered the records during court discovery. T-Mobile stated that its team evaluates government demands carefully and acts in compliance with the law, while both the Department of Justice and DHS declined to comment on the matter.

The scope of the government's administrative demands extends beyond individual reporters to encompass broader media outlets and advocacy groups. DHS issued administrative requests seeking YouTube records connected to conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly, progressive news outlet Democracy Now, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, and independent journalist Brendan Gutenschwager. In a separate case involving conspiracy charges against 15 activists, the government successfully acquired financial records for the Sunrise Movement, the Service Employees International Union, and the Communications Workers of America, as well as Venmo transaction records for Minnesota non-profit Voices for Racial Justice. PayPal, which owns Venmo, declined to comment.

The executive branch's reliance on customs regulations to access tech user data has drawn criticism from legal and ethics experts. As first reported by Hacker News, federal prosecutors argued in court filings that the statutory text of Title 19 grants DHS broad authority to investigate potential federal crimes under laws administered by the former U.S. Customs Service. Former DHS legal counsel Chris Duncan disputed that rationale, stating that Congress enacted Section 1509 strictly to enforce trade and customs compliance rather than domestic criminal matters. John Roth, who served as DHS inspector general from 2014 to 2017, characterized the administrative demands as an improper execution of subpoena power outside customs enforcement.

Digital rights advocates emphasize that administrative summonses create significant privacy risks because they bypass neutral judicial review. Freedom of the Press Foundation senior adviser Caitlin Vogus and American Civil Liberties Union privacy attorney Nathan Freed Wessler warned that unmasking subscriber data and IP logs can compromise confidential news sources and suppress speech protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney F. Mario Trujillo and Civil Liberties Defense Center executive director Lauren Regan noted that tech platforms frequently notify users of administrative demands rather than challenging them directly in court, shifting a financial burden that can reach tens of thousands of dollars onto individual account holders.

While technology companies possess the legal authority to resist non-judicial summonses or file motions to quash them, executive branch data demands remain largely hidden unless challenged in court. The New York Times reported in February that DHS had dispatched hundreds of administrative subpoenas to social media entities. Tech platforms have occasionally litigated against these demands in court, including a 2017 lawsuit brought by Twitter to block a DHS Section 1509 summons aimed at unmasking an anonymous user account, but privacy advocates note that systemic oversight remains difficult without broader transparency from both online platforms and federal law enforcement.