Biden DOJ's Secret Subpoenas of User Data Sparks Legal Battle with X

In a battle that underscores the growing concerns about government surveillance and secrecy, X (formerly Twitter) is challenging the Biden administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) over what it claims are abusive practices in obtaining and concealing subpoenas for user data. The social media giant, owned by Elon Musk, contends that federal prosecutors have gone too far by preventing X from informing targeted users, which include former FBI whistleblowers, that their accounts were under government surveillance.

This case spotlights key issues that strike at the heart of civil liberties and privacy in the digital age. Here’s what we know:

• Nondisclosure Orders as a Shield: X argues that prosecutors are exploiting "nondisclosure orders" to prevent accountability and shield themselves from pushback. They allegedly persuaded a judge to issue these orders by claiming that two whistleblower FBI agents who raised red flags about the politicization of the Biden FBI posed a risk of fleeing, intimidating witnesses, or tampering with evidence. But these claims were kept secret, without any opportunity for rebuttal, drawing criticism similar to that faced by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) courts for lack of transparency and oversight.

• A Broader Trend: This isn’t the first time X has encountered this issue. In 2023, special counsel Jack Smith subpoenaed X for data on former President Trump and barred the company from notifying Trump of the action. Given the high-profile nature of that investigation, X argued that there was no logical reason for such secrecy. By keeping Trump in the dark, X claims that his legal team was deprived of the ability to challenge the subpoena on grounds of presidential immunity a challenge that could have altered the course of the case. X lost that legal battle, but it brought the question of government secrecy and user rights to the forefront.

• First Amendment Concerns: Blocking X from informing users of government actions on their accounts, Musk argues, verges on restricting free speech. The company is pushing for transparency, suggesting that the evidence justifying such nondisclosure orders should at least be shared with X’s legal team, who are capable of preserving confidentiality.

As it stands, the DOJ’s tactics in this case have raised significant concerns about whether prosecutors are using nondisclosure orders broadly, without evidence-based justification on a case-by-case basis. Court filings indicate that the Justice Department’s approach may be far more about quashing scrutiny and whistleblowing than about credible national security threats.

One of the whistleblowers, Kyle Seraphin, who was suspended from the FBI after exposing alleged abuses, including the agency's misguided scrutiny of conservative Catholic groups, suspects the DOJ’s actions aim to "settle a score." According to Seraphin, the FBI targeted his X account as part of a quiet vendetta against him, driven by his willingness to question the bureau's leadership and practices.

This case raises further questions about how expansive the Biden administration’s surveillance practices have become. Seraphin’s case is emblematic of broader issues within the FBI, especially after he criticized the bureau for prioritizing minor cases from January 6 over more pressing security concerns. As Musk and X fight on, the public may see the contours of a new precedent one that could either curb or expand government power over private information in unprecedented ways.

By appealing this decision, X aims to establish that the federal government cannot blanket platforms with broad nondisclosure orders, especially when there’s no clear justification. As Big Tech becomes a battleground for civil liberties, X’s challenge against the DOJ is likely to be a defining moment for online privacy rights.

Share this article to spread the word, or subscribe to our newsletter for updates on this ongoing fight for transparency and freedom.