Key facts
- Democrats Ron Wyden and Pramila Jayapal requested an investigation into the Trump administration's use of administrative summonses.
- The summonses were allegedly used to secretly collect records on journalists, non-profits, and unions without judicial oversight.
- The lawmakers are concerned about the use of non-disclosure language in these demands, which they argue is not legally binding.
- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has confirmed receipt of the request and is reviewing it.
Two Democratic lawmakers, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, have formally requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigate the Trump administration's alleged secret surveillance practices. The lawmakers are specifically concerned about the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) use of obscure administrative summonses, related to customs matters, to unilaterally demand information without judicial oversight.
According to reports, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), an arm of DHS, has used these summonses to obtain six months of telephone records for journalist Georgia Fort. In one instance, HSI issued an administrative summons to Google for YouTube records of Fort and Don Lemon after a judge had twice rejected a search warrant application for the same information, citing the need for the targets to contest the request. Fort and Lemon face civil rights crime charges in connection with their reporting on a protest, to which they have pleaded not guilty.
DHS has also reportedly used administrative summonses to acquire financial information from labor unions and Venmo transactions from a non-profit group. Furthermore, administrative subpoenas have been issued to tech companies like Meta, X, and Reddit in an effort to identify anonymous critics of DHS.
Wyden and Jayapal are asking the GAO to audit HSI's use of non-disclosure language in these summonses, which they argue impedes investigations and interferes with federal law enforcement but is not legally binding. They contend that recipients have a First Amendment right to notify customers, allowing targets to challenge demands. The lawmakers also raised concerns about similar practices by the Department of Justice and the US Drug Enforcement Administration, which they say pressure companies into keeping subpoenas private, leading some businesses to comply out of fear of retaliation.
Additionally, the lawmakers requested the GAO identify any policy changes DHS made regarding administrative summonses following a 2017 inspector general report that found improper usage. They have also asked the judicial conference to amend subpoena templates to clarify that recipients can disclose their existence unless a court order prohibits it, aiming to protect privacy and free speech rights.