Loading story…
Civil liberties groups and media advocates are escalating claims that US government entities are pressuring or leveraging authority in ways that chill speech and shape online information flows. The EFF is pursuing FOIA litigation to uncover communications between federal officials and technology platforms, arguing that government requests around content moderation—particularly involving criticism of ICE—may have crossed from persuasion into unconstitutional coercion; advocates say platforms could resist by demanding court orders and that prior litigation has prompted the government to withdraw certain unmasking requests.
Separately, a GAO report obtained by Nextgov/FCW found the FBI used its “assessment” authority from 2018–2024 to collect information on more than 1,000 individuals and organizations—including journalists, religious groups, and elected officials—using tools that can include physical surveillance, subpoenas for electronic communications information, and confidential sources without the evidentiary predicate required for a criminal investigation. In a related speech-and-platform governance dispute, the FTC chair sent a letter to Apple alleging Apple News suppresses conservative outlets and suggesting potential consumer-protection violations, drawing criticism that the move resembles government pressure over editorial decisions despite the letter citing no specific terms-of-service provisions allegedly breached.
Mallory correlates global threat intelligence with your attack surface — know if you’re exposed before adversaries strike.
2 events from the most recent confirmed update back to the earliest known activity.
Nextgov/FCW reported on a GAO watchdog report stating that the FBI had opened roughly 100 Type I/II assessments involving news media organizations or their members, about 180 involving religious organizations or their members, and about 550 involving public officials. The report also recommended additional mechanisms to detect noncompliance with assessment policies.
A Government Accountability Office report examined the FBI’s use of its assessment authority over the 2018–2024 period, including investigations involving news media organizations, religious organizations, public officials, and some matters with an academic nexus. The review found the FBI used broad intelligence-gathering techniques during assessments and likely undercounted analyst noncompliance because of self-reporting and limited audits.
Vulnerabilities, threat actors, malware, products, organizations, and breaches Mallory has linked to this story.
3 references tracked. Mallory keeps watching after this page renders.
arstechnica.com
Open sourcenextgov.com
Open sourcearstechnica.com
Open sourceMap indicators from this story to your assets and identify affected systems in minutes.
Every observed campaign, victim, and pivot linked to actors named in this story.
Malware, exploits, and IOCs connected to the activity described here.
YARA, Sigma, and Snort rules deployed to your SIEM as soon as they’re published.
Get matching new stories delivered to your team as they break — not the next morning.
Ask questions about this story and take action on the answers.
Other stories Mallory is tracking that overlap on entities, sources, or topic labels.
Lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are representing three US labor unions in a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging a social media surveillance program that they argue infringes on First Amendment rights. The unions claim that the program, which requires nearly all US visa applicants to disclose all social media handles used in the past five years, has had a chilling effect on free speech and union engagement. This policy, implemented under the Trump administration but proposed during the Obama era, also mandates that noncitizens on F, M, and J visas make their social media accounts publicly viewable. The surveillance initiative, known as "Catch and Revoke," is a collaborative effort between the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Department of Justice, and uses AI to monitor visa holders' social media for expressions of support for Hamas, Palestine, or antisemitism. Individuals found to express views deemed anti-American or non-conforming risk having their visas or immigration benefits revoked. In a related legal development, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that the executive orders underpinning these surveillance measures were unconstitutional, temporarily halting enforcement actions based on social media activity. The government is expected to appeal this decision. Separately, the Trump administration has been accused of pressuring Facebook to remove a large group page used to track and publicize the locations of ICE agents in Chicago. The Department of Justice contacted Meta after reports that the group, which had over 84,000 members, was being used to dox ICE agents, leading Facebook to remove the group for violating its policies against coordinated harm. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the DOJ would continue to work with tech companies to eliminate platforms that could incite violence against federal law enforcement. The White House has claimed a dramatic increase in attacks on ICE officers, though independent reporting has found no public evidence to support the scale of these claims. Meta, Facebook's parent company, confirmed the removal of the group but did not specify the exact policy violation. The actions taken by both the government and social media platforms highlight the intersection of immigration enforcement, online speech, and civil liberties. These developments have raised concerns among advocacy groups about the potential for overreach and the suppression of lawful dissent. The ongoing legal battles and policy debates underscore the contentious nature of social media monitoring in the context of US immigration and law enforcement. Both the surveillance program and the removal of online groups reflect broader efforts by the Trump administration to control narratives and activities related to immigration on digital platforms. The outcomes of these legal and policy actions are likely to have significant implications for privacy, free expression, and the rights of both citizens and noncitizens in the United States.
Jun 29, 2026
A federal judge ordered the FBI to pause searching devices seized from *Washington Post* reporter Ellen Nakashima Natanson while the court considers claims that reviewing the contents would violate **First Amendment** protections for journalists and **attorney-client privilege**. The Post said the government refused to voluntarily refrain from reviewing the seized items pending judicial resolution, and argued the devices contain extensive journalistic work product, including tens of thousands of emails, interview recordings, story drafts, and encrypted **Signal** communications with more than 1,100 sources. Separately, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging whether **geofence warrants**—orders compelling companies (often Google) to provide location data for devices present in a defined area during a specific time—are constitutional under the **Fourth Amendment**. The case arises from the prosecution of Okello Chatrie, where police used a geofence request to obtain anonymized location data near a robbery scene and then narrowed it to subscriber information; the petition highlights rapid growth in geofence requests and argues the practice is increasingly common despite inconsistent lower-court rulings and limited judicial guidance for balancing investigative needs against user privacy.
Jun 29, 2026
Reporting described a Trump administration directive ordering U.S. diplomats to **lobby against foreign “data sovereignty” and data-localization laws** that would constrain how U.S. technology companies handle non-U.S. citizens’ data. The cable argues such regulations would hinder **AI and cloud services**, disrupt global data flows, raise costs, and potentially increase cybersecurity risk, while also warning that localization could expand state control in ways that undermine civil liberties and enable censorship; diplomats were also instructed to track sovereignty proposals and promote mechanisms such as the **Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules Forum** to support “trusted” international data transfers. Separately, the administration was reported to be seeking a **clean reauthorization of FISA Section 702**, preserving the ability to compel providers to furnish communications of foreign targets abroad without a warrant and without adding a warrant requirement for queries involving U.S.-person data held in 702 databases. The debate is occurring amid documented compliance and civil-liberties concerns, including acknowledged **improper FBI queries** (e.g., related to January 6 and 2020 protest activity). Commentary on AI and democracy provided broader context on how AI-driven “arms races” and industry lobbying can reshape governance and citizen-state relationships, but it did not add incident-level cybersecurity details tied to the diplomatic cable or Section 702 reauthorization effort.
Jun 29, 2026