A 67-year-old retired U.S. citizen said Kristi Noem’s DHS targeted him with an administrative subpoena and a visit from investigators after he emailed a federal prosecutor to request leniency in a high-profile deportation case, according to an investigation by The Washington Post.
The man, known only as Jon, told the newspaper he sent a brief email after reading about an Afghan man facing deportation. Jon was concerned that the man could be killed if sent back. He found the prosecutor’s contact information and wrote to ask for mercy. Within hours, he stated, the Department of Homeland Security issued an administrative subpoena seeking information tied to his Google account, which can be accessed without a judge’s approval.
Jon learned about the subpoena through a notice from Google. The subpoena sought various pieces of information, including identifying details and account metadata.
In the following days, Jon reported that local police and federal investigators came to his home. They questioned him about the email and arrived with a copy of the message. He told reporters he had not threatened anyone and had only asked for leniency.
Administrative subpoenas differ from grand jury subpoenas or court-issued warrants. They can be signed within an agency and sent directly to a third party holding information, like a technology company, without prior review by a judge. Civil liberties advocates have warned that using them can create a chilling effect on free speech, especially against those who criticize the government or contact officials.
This situation happened as the Trump administration broadened immigration enforcement and leaned on laws that give federal agencies broad powers to gather information during investigations. In Jon’s case, the subpoena came after his email to a prosecutor was included in reports about the Afghan deportation issue.
Jon’s email included a plea to the prosecutor not to “play Russian roulette” with the Afghan man’s life. Jon was shocked that his call for mercy prompted an investigative response.
The Washington Post reported that Google ultimately refused to provide Jon’s data in response to the subpoena, yet investigators still knocked on his door with his email in hand. Jon tried to understand how the agents obtained the message and why he was treated as a target.
DHS defended its actions, stating they were related to an ongoing criminal investigation, but did not provide details about the underlying reasons or explain why an administrative subpoena was needed for an email that Jon had sent openly.
Legal experts quoted in the reporting noted that the subpoena’s scope and timing were unusual, especially since Jon is a U.S. citizen and the triggering action was a nonviolent expression directed to a government lawyer.
Civil rights groups have challenged similar subpoenas in other situations. They argue these can be used to identify speakers or collect personal information without proper judicial oversight. One example is litigation by the ACLU of Northern California contesting an administrative subpoena that aimed to reveal the operator of an Instagram account, claiming it violated First Amendment rights for anonymous political speech.
Jon said he hired a lawyer and took steps to fight the subpoena and the government’s attempts to collect his personal information. The Post reported that his experience has become a case study of how a tool meant for investigative efficiency can affect ordinary Americans who contact officials about public issues.
For Jon, the most unsettling part was the speed, he told the Post. It was an email sent in response to a news report, followed by a subpoena notice and then a knock at the door.
