Student Journalist’s Data Shared With ICE After Campus Protest

Student Journalist Targeted After Pro-Palestine Organizing

A British graduate student and journalist at Cornell University, Amandla Thomas Johnson, has found himself in the crosshairs of the federal government. Johnson, who was involved in pro-Palestine organizing on campus, faced temporary suspension from the university in 2024. This action followed a protest that disrupted a career fair, as reported by The Cornell Sun.

The situation escalated for international students involved in such activism. Johnson’s friend, Mamadou Tal, sued the government to prevent the targeting of students protesting for Palestinian rights. While Tal pursued legal action, Johnson reportedly saw the writing on the wall. He fled the country in April 2025, fearing deportation. His concerns were amplified when a friend detained at Tampa airport was questioned about Johnson’s whereabouts and handed a note bearing his name.

Adding to the pressure, Johnson received an email on May 8, 2025, informing him that his student visa status had been terminated by the federal government. The Cornell Sun noted that his status was revoked under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act allowing consular officers to revoke an alien’s visa at their discretion. Johnson believes his past work as a journalist, particularly covering the “war on terror” beat, made him a target.

Google Handed Over User Data to DHS

The same day Johnson learned of his immigration status termination, he also received an email from Google. The company informed him that his metadata had been provided to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) following a government subpoena. However, reporting from The Intercept revealed that Google turned over this data without notifying Johnson or giving him a chance to challenge the request.

It wasn’t until recently that Johnson learned the full scope of the information the government sought. A subpoena obtained by The Intercept shows DHS requested a wide range of personal data from Google. This included usernames, addresses, a list of services used, IP masking devices, phone numbers, and even bank and credit card information linked to his account. The subpoena reportedly offered little justification, stating only that the information was required “in connection with an investigation or inquiry relating to the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.” It also demanded that Google not disclose the summons’s existence for an indefinite period.

Johnson and his legal team suspect that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requested this data to track and detain him. While they still don’t know the exact extent of what Google shared, the inclusion of financial details raises significant privacy concerns. Google did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment.

Administrative Subpoenas: A Growing Concern

The subpoena issued to Google in Johnson’s case was not a typical court-ordered subpoena. It was an administrative subpoena, a legal tool that federal agents can issue themselves without needing approval from a judge or grand jury. This method has become increasingly common under the Trump administration for immigration crackdowns.

Experts like Faiza Patel, senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice, and technology journalist Jake Ward, have highlighted the implications of administrative subpoenas. Ward explained that these tools allow the government to access vast amounts of personal data collected by tech companies. In a digital age, he noted, this information paints a detailed picture of an individual’s life, far exceeding the surveillance capabilities of the past.

“We’re talking about a world in which, you know, a guy in a van with a pair of headphones on outside your house doesn’t even come close to the kind of surveillance that our modern information ecosystem has on us.”

Jake Ward, Technology Journalist

Patel added that the standard for obtaining information via an administrative subpoena is much lower than for a warrant. The government only needs to show relevance to an investigation, and courts are often deferential to these requests. Furthermore, individuals may not receive notice of such subpoenas, and even if they do, challenging them is difficult, leaving them in a vulnerable position.

Broader Implications for Privacy

The case of Amandla Thomas Johnson underscores a larger issue: the erosion of privacy in the digital age. The vast amounts of data willingly shared with tech companies, from daily purchases to personal communications, can be accessed by the government with relative ease.

Ward pointed out that the Fourth Amendment does not always protect data held by third parties. In many cases, the government can simply purchase information on the open market without any legal process. This creates a surveillance “panopticon,” where personal activities are constantly monitored.

The line between content and non-content information, once a clear distinction for privacy protections, has blurred significantly. Records that might seem innocuous, like call logs or internet search histories, can reveal intimate details about a person’s life, including their associations, beliefs, and activities. This information, accessible via subpoenas, can be used to build comprehensive profiles of individuals.

The reliance on administrative subpoenas bypasses traditional judicial oversight, allowing for broader “fishing expeditions” by agencies like ICE. This trend raises concerns about potential misuse and the chilling effect it could have on free speech and association, particularly for activists and international students.

Looking Ahead

The case of Amandla Thomas Johnson highlights a critical juncture in digital privacy and civil liberties. As technology advances, the legal frameworks designed to protect individuals are struggling to keep pace. The increasing use of administrative subpoenas and the willingness of tech companies to share user data raise questions about the future of privacy and the potential for government overreach. Future developments will likely focus on legal challenges to administrative subpoenas, calls for greater transparency from tech companies, and legislative efforts to strengthen digital privacy protections for all individuals, regardless of their immigration status.

Source: From campus protest to federal target: How one student journalist’s data was handed over to ICE (YouTube)