DHS under President Trump seeks records from social media and telecom firms using “1509” summonses, according to report

President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security is using an obscure statutory mechanism to obtain private information about journalists, nonprofit organizations, and unions from social media and telecommunications companies, according to a report by The Guardian. The paper said DHS has pursued what it described as “1509” summonses even after courts rejected the same approach in earlier challenges.

The Guardian reported that in at least one instance DHS obtained months of records tied to the communications activity of journalists, through requests served on a private company rather than through a conventional, publicly reviewable process. The report did not identify the journalist by name in the excerpt reviewed here, and it characterized the request as involving a limited period of information, describing it as “six months” of records.

The legal theory referenced in the report centers on a seldom-invoked statute labeled “1509.” The Guardian said the government’s effort is “directly” aimed at platform and telecom providers, rather than requesting information from the subjects of the records or proceeding through a process the courts had previously required. The paper also said DHS’s renewed effort follows judicial rulings that rejected similar attempts.

Courts have required government agencies to follow established legal procedures when seeking sensitive information that can affect speech and association, including access to information that may relate to newsgathering or collective organizing. The Guardian report framed DHS’s renewed summons activity as an attempt to expand access to private data while reducing or eliminating what the publication described as judicial oversight.

In response to these court challenges, DHS and the administration typically maintain that investigative and security needs can justify targeted access to data held by third-party companies. The Guardian report, however, highlighted the dispute over whether the government’s method is consistent with constitutional protections and the judiciary’s role in reviewing requests that implicate First Amendment activity.

The report said DHS has attempted to keep the requests moving by shifting to companies that hold communications or account-related records, including social media and telecommunications firms. Under that approach, the practical effect can be to expose information about protected activity without the subject necessarily being notified at the time the records are collected, depending on the legal mechanism used and the scope of the company’s response.

The Guardian’s reporting also indicated that this renewed use of the “1509” process has drawn renewed concern from civil liberties groups and other organizations that represent affected communities. Because the excerpted reporting does not include court case captions or docket numbers, additional review would be needed to identify the specific litigation history and the statutory text DHS is invoking in each request.

What happens next will likely depend on whether affected parties challenge the summonses in court, and on the outcomes of any pending cases testing the boundaries of the “1509” authority. In the meantime, the dispute is likely to continue to focus on the same core question described by the report: whether the government can obtain private information through a mechanism that courts have already questioned, or whether stronger judicial process is required.