DHS Used Obscure Customs Law to Subpoena Journalist and Non-Profit Records, Bypassing Courts

In January 2026, the Department of Homeland Security issued an administrative subpoena to T-Mobile, demanding six months of phone records belonging to Minneapolis journalist Georgia Fort. The data pull encompassed more than 10,000 calls and text messages, logging the incoming and outgoing communications of a working reporter. The agency did not seek a judge's approval for the seizure. Instead, newly unsealed court documents reveal the Trump administration's DHS deployed an obscure legal maneuver to bypass the courts entirely, extracting private data on reporters, labor unions, and non-profit organizations without judicial oversight. The revelation has sparked intense scrutiny over the boundaries of federal investigative powers.[1][2]

The mechanism used was 19 USC 1509, an arcane customs statute designed to allow federal agents to inspect records to ensure duties and taxes are correctly levied on imported goods. By invoking this provision, DHS investigators issued administrative summonses that carry the weight of a subpoena but require only the signature of an agency official, not a magistrate. The evidence of this surveillance campaign surfaced during the ongoing federal prosecution of 15 anti-ICE protesters in Minnesota. Defense attorneys seeking discovery uncovered a sweeping operation that included undercover agents infiltrating community meetings at churches, libraries, and breweries, alongside the aggressive use of financial and communication subpoenas to map out activist networks.[1][3][4]

The data trail shows DHS targeted multiple high-profile entities far removed from customs enforcement. Investigators obtained financial records from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Communications Workers of America, and the Sunrise Movement, citing an inquiry into "domestic terrorist financing." They also acquired Venmo transaction logs for Voices for Racial Justice, a local non-profit. None of the organizations have been charged with any crimes, and the government has not publicly explained how these groups connect to the underlying conspiracy charges against the Minnesota protesters. The sheer breadth of the financial dragnet has raised alarms among civil liberties groups monitoring the case.[1][4]

The use of 19 USC 1509 appears to have been a deliberate workaround after the judicial branch pushed back on the agency's requests. In February, federal prosecutors twice applied for search warrants to access the YouTube account information of Fort and fellow journalist Don Lemon, who were covering a January protest that disrupted a church service. A federal judge rejected the warrants both times, ruling that the government failed to establish probable cause of a crime. The judge explicitly instructed prosecutors to notify the journalists so they could challenge the request in court, establishing a clear judicial boundary against the data seizure.[1][5]

Rather than comply with the judge's instructions, DHS withdrew the warrant application. Less than a month later, the agency served Google with a 1509 administrative summons for the exact same YouTube data, attaching a gag order that instructed the tech giant to keep the demand secret. The scope of the YouTube summons extended beyond Fort and Lemon. DHS also sought subscriber information and IP addresses for accounts belonging to Democracy Now, conservative commentator Megyn Kelly, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, and independent reporter Brendan Gutenschwager. While some of the targeted accounts had livestreamed the Minnesota protests, others had not, leaving the exact evidentiary link unclear and suggesting a broader intelligence-gathering effort.[1][2]

The limits of the government's authority under 1509 are now a central point of legal contention. The statute grants broad power to demand records, but historically only within the context of customs enforcement. In 2017, the DHS Inspector General issued a report criticizing the "improper" use of 1509 summonses by Customs and Border Protection officials, leading the agency to agree to stricter oversight. Despite those internal reforms, the practice has continued. Because 1509 summonses do not require a judge's signature, they often remain hidden unless the recipient company chooses to challenge them in court, leaving the targets entirely unaware that their data has been compromised.[1]

T-Mobile complied with the subpoena for Fort's phone records, and she was not notified until government lawyers disclosed the logs to her defense team in mid-July. The government maintains that its surveillance was "standard law enforcement practice" aimed at individuals planning illegal blockades, not peaceful protesters. However, civil liberties advocates argue the tactics amount to political repression. The Brennan Center for Justice characterized the scope of the operation as "breathtaking," noting the vast federal resources devoted to monitoring community members not accused of crimes. Press freedom groups have similarly warned that seizing reporters' communications without warrants effectively criminalizes journalism and compromises confidential sources.[1][2][4][5]

The courts are beginning to intervene as the scope of the surveillance becomes public. A federal judge in Massachusetts is currently weighing whether to hold the administration in contempt for violating a preliminary injunction that barred immigration agents from conducting enforcement operations inside places of worship. Meanwhile, the magistrate judge overseeing the Minnesota conspiracy case is reviewing defense motions to force the disclosure of all Homeland Security reports related to the surveillance operations, internally dubbed "Operation Puppet Master" and "Operation Keyhole." What remains unknown is the full frequency and success rate of these administrative subpoenas, as companies are not legally required to notify users when they receive a 1509 summons.[1][3][6]