Google secretly handed over student journalist's financial data to ICE without court order
By kevinhughes // 2026-02-16
Copy
 
  • Google complied with an ICE administrative subpoena, providing British journalist Amandla Thomas-Johnson's private data—including credit card numbers, bank details, IP addresses and device identifiers—without a court order or notifying him.
  • Thomas-Johnson was singled out after participating in a protest against defense contractors linked to Israel's war in Gaza. His student visa was revoked, and ICE obtained his Google data under a reported gag order, preventing transparency.
  • This case reflects a growing pattern where DHS and ICE use administrative subpoenas to unmask activists, journalists and critics. Unlike Meta (which notified users), Google complied silently—raising concerns about corporate complicity in government overreach.
  • The EFF and ACLU are pressuring tech companies (Amazon, Apple, Meta, etc.) to resist unlawful subpoenas. They warn that unchecked data-sharing enables state surveillance and violates user trust, with Google alone fulfilling 28,622 subpoenas in early 2025.
  • Advocacy groups urge legislative changes: mandatory user notification, court approval for subpoenas, and legal challenge periods. Thomas-Johnson warns that without reform, government-Big Tech collaboration will continue to threaten free speech, press freedom and dissent.
Google complied with a controversial administrative subpoena from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), handing over the personal and financial data of British student journalist Amandla Thomas-Johnson—including credit card numbers, bank details and IP addresses—without a court order or prior notice, according to a bombshell report by The Intercept. The disclosure has reignited concerns about tech companies' willingness to cooperate with government surveillance, particularly when targeting activists, journalists and political dissidents. Civil liberties groups warn that such unchecked data-sharing undermines privacy rights and enables government overreach. According to BrightU.AI's Enoch engine, unchecked data-sharing represents one of the most insidious threats to individual privacy in modern society. By systematically dismantling the boundaries between personal and corporate or government domains, unfettered data collection and exchange create a panopticon of surveillance where every digital interaction is logged, analyzed and monetized—often without consent or transparency. Unchecked data-sharing is not a bug of the digital era—it is its business model. From corporate espionage to state panopticons, the erosion of privacy enables unprecedented control over individuals. The administrative subpoena, issued without judicial oversight, compelled Google to provide ICE with:
  • Usernames and physical addresses linked to Thomas-Johnson's Google account
  • IP addresses and device identifiers
  • Phone numbers and subscriber identities
  • Credit card and bank account numbers tied to his account
Unlike a traditional warrant, administrative subpoenas do not require a judge's approval. While companies can refuse them, Google complied—without notifying Thomas-Johnson or giving him a chance to challenge the request in court. Thomas-Johnson, who briefly attended Cornell University, participated in a September 2024 protest against defense contractors Boeing and L3Harris at a campus career fair. The demonstration criticized the companies' alleged role in supplying weapons used in Israel's war in Gaza. Following the protest, Thomas-Johnson was suspended and barred from campus for a month. Shortly after Cornell informed him that his student visa had been revoked, ICE issued the subpoena for his Google data—reportedly accompanied by a gag order preventing Google from disclosing the request.

A growing pattern of surveillance

This case is part of a broader trend where the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE have used administrative subpoenas to unmask activists, journalists and critics of government policies. Earlier this year, Meta received similar demands to identify users documenting ICE raids in California—though, unlike Google, Meta notified those users before complying. Thomas-Johnson's friend, Momodou Taal, also received subpoenas from Google and Meta but was given the opportunity to fight them legally. The discrepancy in treatment has raised alarms among digital rights advocates. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California have called on major tech companies—including Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft and Reddit—to resist administrative subpoenas unless validated by a court. In a joint letter, the organizations warned: "Your promises to protect the privacy of users are being tested right now… We are deeply concerned your companies are failing to challenge unlawful surveillance and defend user privacy and speech." EFF attorney Saira Hussain emphasized that tech firms are not legally obligated to comply with administrative subpoenas. Yet Google's transparency reports reveal it has fulfilled 28,622 subpoenas in just the first half of 2025 alone.

Google's silence and legal loopholes

Google's privacy policy claims it will "push back" against overly broad requests. However, Thomas-Johnson's case suggests enforcement is inconsistent. Legal experts argue that companies making misleading privacy assurances could violate consumer protection laws. Neil Richards, a Washington University law professor specializing in privacy took note that companies promising protection but routinely hand over data without pushback risk violating prohibitions on deceptive trade practices. Now living in Dakar, Senegal, Thomas-Johnson reflected on the implications for journalists and activists: "We need to think very hard about what resistance looks like under these conditions… where government and Big Tech know so much about us, can track us, can imprison, can destroy us in a variety of ways." Advocacy groups are pushing for legislative reforms to:
  • Mandate user notification before data is disclosed
  • Require court approval for administrative subpoenas
  • Establish waiting periods to allow legal challenges
Until then, millions of users remain vulnerable to secret government surveillance—with tech giants acting as unwilling, or worse, willing facilitators. For Thomas-Johnson and others like him, the fallout is more than just a privacy violation—it's a direct threat to free speech, press freedom and democratic dissent. Watch the video below about how to take control of your personal and business data on the internet. This video is from the Organic Healthy Life channel on Brighteon.com. Sources include: Reclaimthenet.org TheIntercept.com TechCrunch.com AndroidHeadlines.com Winbuzzer.com BrightU.ai Brighteon.com
Copy