The Department of Homeland Security has issued subpoenas to tech giants like Google and Meta, seeking the identities of social media users critical of ICE. In response, former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich openly defies the subpoenas, identifying himself as a vocal critic and accusing the department of numerous unconstitutional actions, challenging them to target him directly.
The New York Times reports that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has sent subpoenas to major media corporations, including Google and Meta, demanding the names of accounts that criticize ICE enforcement, aiming to identify Americans opposing their actions. Robert Reich, a former US Secretary of Labor, directly addresses the 'Madam Secretary,' stating he has frequently criticized ICE enforcement and continues to do so. He invites the department to search for his extensive critical content across various platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and X. Reich explicitly states his belief that the department is doing a 'shitty job' and that many of its actions, along with the administration's, are unconstitutional. He cites examples such as arresting people without due process, detaining innocent individuals in poor conditions, denying medical care, withholding information from families, sending people to brutal foreign prisons, jailing children, arresting journalists, and hindering investigations into killings of Americans. He argues that these actions, including the subpoenas themselves, violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to criticize the government without fear. Reich emphasizes that the government belongs to the citizens and that officials are hired to serve the public, not spy on, intimidate, or harm them. He contrasts his own conduct as a cabinet officer, where he upheld the Constitution, invited criticism, and learned from feedback, with the current department's alleged defiance of courts and disregard for constitutional duties. He concludes by questioning the department's actions and reiterating his commitment to his constitutional responsibilities.
