Shadow State Secrets: Congress Demands Answers on Trump-Era Surveillance

The latest revelations about the Trump administration’s secret surveillance of Americans should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who cares about free speech and an independent press. Democratic lawmakers Ron Wyden and Pramila Jayapal have asked a government watchdog to investigate the use of obscure laws to collect records on journalists, non-profits, and unions without judicial oversight.

At issue are “administrative summonses,” which allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to demand information from companies like Google or Venmo without going through the courts. These summonses have been used to obtain phone records, financial data, and even YouTube account information, often with little transparency or accountability. In one notable case, journalist Georgia Fort had her phone records secretly obtained by DHS after she covered a protest in Minnesota.

The scope of this surveillance is alarming, raising serious questions about the balance between national security and individual rights. Non-profit groups have also been targeted, with one organization having its Venmo transactions monitored by the government. The language used in these summonses often includes clauses asking companies to keep quiet about the demands for information. This can still have a chilling effect on free speech, even if it’s not legally binding.

Privacy experts argue that recipients of these subpoenas – third-party companies and service providers – have a First Amendment right to notify their customers of the demand. The Wyden-Jayapal request is timely, given the long history of government overreach in this area. In 2017, a DHS inspector general report found that administrative summonses were being used improperly.

The Department of Justice and the US Drug Enforcement Administration have also been accused of using language in subpoenas to pressure companies into keeping quiet. What’s striking is how often companies comply with these extra-legal requests, often out of fear of regulatory retaliation. This creates a perverse incentive structure, where businesses prioritize avoiding government wrath over protecting their customers’ rights.

Even large technology firms like AT&T and CVS have cited these demands to justify their silence about government requests for customer data. The solution lies in greater transparency and accountability. Wyden and Jayapal are pushing for changes to DHS policies around administrative summonses, as well as a change in the template for grand jury or trial subpoenas that would make it clear recipients can disclose their existence unless a court order prohibits it.

As we wait for answers from the GAO and other government agencies, one thing is clear: the line between national security and individual rights has been blurred. It’s up to Congress to draw that line again, and to ensure that our government doesn’t abuse its powers in the name of secrecy and surveillance. The American people have a right to know what their government is doing – and to be protected from its overreach.