DHS Uses 1930s Customs Law to Seek Google Data on Canadian Critic

Context The summons arrived after the unnamed Canadian man posted online criticism of the Trump administration following the Minneapolis killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) invoked a customs law from the 1930s that normally applies to import‑export compliance. Google and DHS have not responded to requests for comment.

Key Facts - DHS asked Google for the man’s location, activity logs, and other identifying information. - The American Civil Liberties Union’s senior staff attorney Michael Perloff says the government did not verify the man’s residence before issuing the request. “I don’t know what the government knows about our client’s residence, but it’s clear that the government isn’t stopping to find out,” Perloff told reporters. - Perloff argues DHS is exploiting the fact that major tech firms are headquartered in the United States to obtain data it could not otherwise reach. “It’s using that geographic fact to get information that otherwise would be totally outside of its jurisdiction,” he said. - The summons cites a statute intended for “records and testimony about the correctness of an entry, the liability of a person for duties, taxes, and fees.” Former Customs and Border Protection counsel Chris Duncan notes the law was never meant to target online speech or foreign residents. - The lawsuit, filed against DHS secretary Markwayne Mullin, alleges the agency violated the customs law by seeking data unrelated to customs compliance.

What It Means The case highlights a growing tension between U.S. law enforcement and the extraterritorial reach of American tech companies. If courts allow DHS to use the old customs provision for surveillance of foreign critics, the precedent could expand government access to personal data worldwide, bypassing traditional jurisdictional limits. Watch for the district court’s ruling on the summons and any appellate challenges that could reshape the balance between national security tools and privacy protections.