When the Government Watches the Watchers
Julie K. Brown learned the government tracked her while she exposed Epstein. My sealed case shows the pattern didn’t end there.
Julie K. Brown did not set out to become part of the Jeffrey Epstein story. She set out to report it. Yet in the course of exposing how Epstein was protected by secrecy and prosecutorial discretion, Brown later learned that the government itself had been quietly tracking her travel. The journalist investigating institutional failure had, without her knowledge, become an object of institutional scrutiny.
That revelation matters, not because it proves malicious intent, but because it exposes a recurring truth about power. When journalists and investigators probe powerful systems, secrecy often shifts from a limited investigative tool into a reflexive shield. Surveillance expands. Explanations contract. Accountability is deferred.
The unsealing of the Epstein files did more than illuminate past crimes. It revealed how secrecy, once normalized, can be used to monitor, deter, and control those who insist on asking uncomfortable questions.
That same pattern now sits at the center of my own case.
Investigate First. Explain Never.
The federal government obtained a sealed order under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) compelling Google to disclose subscriber records associated with my email American Muckrakers account, which I use for investigative journalism and public advocacy through American Muckrakers. At the time, I was not notified. I was not shown the application. I was not provided the supporting affidavit. I was not told what justification was offered to the court.
Only after the statutory nondisclosure period expired did Google notify me that the order had existed at all. Even then, the government continued to withhold the underlying filings, long after any plausible investigative need for secrecy had passed.
This is not a procedural technicality. It is a constitutional problem.
The First Amendment Problem
The First Amendment protects more than the right to publish words. It protects investigative journalism, political advocacy, and association without undue government interference.
Secret acquisition of a publisher’s communications records creates an immediate chilling effect. When the government compounds that intrusion by refusing to explain why it acted, speech is deterred not by law, but by uncertainty. Reporters, sources, and advocates are left to wonder whether their work triggered scrutiny, and whether further inquiry will bring more of the same.
Julie K. Brown’s experience makes this tangible. Surveillance conducted in secret does not merely collect information. It reshapes behavior. It teaches those who watch power that power is watching back.
The Fourth Amendment Cannot Operate in the Dark
A § 2703(d) order is a government search.
Although the statute permits disclosure under a standard lower than probable cause, the Fourth Amendment still requires that searches be reasonable. Reasonableness, however, cannot be evaluated if the affected individual is denied access to the justification presented to the court.
Continued sealing prevents any meaningful assessment of whether the government’s request was narrow or overbroad, grounded or speculative. Transparency after the fact is not optional; it is one of the mechanisms by which Fourth Amendment protections retain real force rather than becoming abstractions.
Due Process Is Not a Courtesy
The most direct constitutional injury here is to due process.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. A process in which the government secretly obtains records, allows years to pass, and then refuses to disclose the legal basis for its action denies the affected individual any realistic chance to challenge the intrusion or seek judicial relief.
Without access to the application and affidavits supporting the order, I cannot evaluate whether the statutory standard was met. I cannot test whether the court was presented with complete or accurate information. And I cannot protect my constitutional rights in anything resembling a fair process.
That is why I moved to unseal the record, and later to compel the government to comply with the court’s own deadlines after it failed to respond at all once appropriations were restored.
Silence, when ordered to speak, is not neutrality. It is defiance.
Courts Are Not Vaults
Sealing is an exception to the norm of open judicial proceedings. It exists to protect legitimate interests for limited periods of time—not to permanently shield executive action from scrutiny.
The Constitution’s separation of powers depends on courts acting as a check on executive authority. When secrecy persists without active, particularized findings justifying its continuation, courts risk becoming passive enforcers of executive discretion rather than independent arbiters. That concern animated my request for a formal order unsealing the record once any justification for secrecy had expired..
The Epstein Lesson
The Epstein files matter because they show what happens when secrecy becomes habitual rather than justified. Trust in institutions collapses not because records are disclosed, but because they were hidden for too long.
The Constitution does not require blind faith in government power. It requires accountability—after the fact if not before. That principle applies whether the subject is a billionaire shielded for decades or a publisher whose records were quietly seized and whose questions remain unanswered.
Transparency is not a favor. It is the constitutional baseline.
About the Author
David B. Wheeler is the President of American Muckrakers, a watchdog organization focused on accountability, ethics, and rule-of-law enforcement, and the host of the MUCK YOU! podcast, which features candid conversations with public figures, journalists, and former government officials about democracy, power, and abuse.
The views expressed are his own.
Disclaimer
This essay constitutes protected speech and commentary, opinion, and advocacy on matters of public concern under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is not a legal pleading, sworn statement, affidavit, or admission of fact, and it does not purport to describe evidence, discovery, or litigation strategy. This commentary is not intended to influence any pending judicial proceeding. Nothing herein waives any rights, concedes any legal position, or limits the author’s ability to pursue or defend lawful claims in any forum.
Copyright © 2025. All rights reserved. American Muckrakers PAC, Inc. and David B. Wheeler. This work may not be reproduced or republished for commercial or promotional purposes without express written consent.
Paid for by American Muckrakers PAC II. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. Donations to American Muckrakers are not deductible for state or federal tax purposes.