Federal agents are tracking down online critics of ICE in apparent First Amendment crackdown

When David Streever returned to the US from a vacation in Finland, federal agents with the Department of Homeland Security were waiting. While he'd been away, they'd visited his home, left warning notices with his wife, and after his arrival back on American soil, tracked him down at his hotel. His offense, according to a lawsuit now pending in federal court: he'd sent a strongly worded email criticizing ICE's leadership.

Streever's case is not unique. According to recent reporting, DHS has begun a systematic effort to investigate and intimidate people who publicly criticize immigration enforcement, framing such speech as threats or "doxing" of federal agents. The campaign raises significant constitutional questions about whether the government is using bogus legal pretexts to suppress legitimate political speech.

The pattern of warnings and investigations#

After federal agents killed two Minneapolis residents, Streever sent an email to Todd Lyons, who was then leading ICE. The message was blunt and angry—he compared Lyons to a Nazi official and predicted his eventual downfall—but contained no explicit threats or calls for violence. Still, DHS agents delivered a formal warning claiming the email "MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW."

Streever is among at least 100 people who have received similar treatment. According to recently reported investigations, the Office of Professional Responsibility has opened cases against individuals accused of "doxing" or threatening ICE personnel. In other recent examples, agents confronted Paigelynne Gonyea at a polling place in Syracuse after she posted about an ICE officer's identity on social media. A Philadelphia retiree named Jon was visited by plainclothes agents after sending an email to an ICE prosecutor that included references to "Russian roulette"—a metaphor the agents suggested could be interpreted as a threat.

How the government tracks critics#

DHS has deployed administrative subpoenas at scale to locate these individuals. Since at least August of last year, the department has sent hundreds of subpoenas to platforms including Google, Reddit, Discord, and Meta seeking names, email addresses, phone numbers, and other identifying information of people who post criticism online. How agents then locate and approach these individuals—appearing at homes, hotels, and workplaces—demonstrates the reach of this surveillance effort.

Adam Steinbaugh, representing Streever through the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argues the constitutional violation is plain. "There is a broader pattern of the federal government using dubious legal resources or tools to deter speech," he said. Unlike arrests for the same speech, which would obviously violate the First Amendment, warning visits and subpoenas can be harder to challenge—yet they achieve the same chilling effect.