Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has DuckDuckGo ever received or complied with FISA or NSL national security orders?
Executive summary
Available reporting and public-company transparency practices show no direct, sourced confirmation that DuckDuckGo has publicly acknowledged receiving or complying with FISA orders or National Security Letters (NSLs); major tech transparency discussions note that recipients are often legally barred from disclosure [1] [2]. Commentators and privacy guides warn that as a U.S. company DuckDuckGo could face compelled orders under FISA/NSLs, but those are hypothetical or general legal analyses rather than documented admissions specific to DuckDuckGo [3] [4].
1. Why the question is hard to answer: secrecy laws and gag orders
FISA orders and many NSLs commonly carry nondisclosure (gag) provisions that legally prevent recipients from revealing the existence of the orders; U.S. law and company reports describe limits on how much firms can disclose about national-security demands [1] [5]. As Microsoft’s transparency page explains, the law “prohibits us from disclosing more specific information regarding national security legal demands including FISA orders and NSLs,” and companies often can only publish aggregated data months later or when the nondisclosure is lifted [1]. That structural secrecy means absence of public confirmation does not prove absence of orders; it means sources may not be permitted to speak.
2. What the sources say about DuckDuckGo specifically
Available sources in your set do not include a DuckDuckGo transparency report or statement confirming receipt or compliance with any particular FISA order or NSL. DuckDuckGo’s help pages emphasize privacy-by-design and say they “do not create a search or browsing history for any individual,” and that they comply with EU Digital Services Act transparency rules [6]. Separately, articles and privacy guides note that because DuckDuckGo is a U.S. company it is subject to U.S. law and could be compelled, but those pieces frame the point as legal possibility or warning rather than documented compliance [4] [3].
3. Broader legal and industry context: how other companies handle this
Large tech firms repeatedly note legal prohibitions on full disclosure of FISA/NSL matters and sometimes litigate for the right to publish aggregate numbers or challenge gag orders in court [1] [7]. Industry reporting and advocacy groups have documented that NSLs historically were issued in large numbers and sometimes reviewed or challenged in courts, and that recipients have limited abilities to disclose while nondisclosure remains in force [8] [5] [9]. This industry context explains why many companies’ public-facing statements can be limited to general policies rather than incident-level admissions [1].
4. What commentators and third parties assert — and their limits
Privacy commentators argue that no U.S.-based provider is completely “NSA-safe” because courts can compel cooperation or technical assistance [4]. A 2025 privacy article summarized the general risk that DuckDuckGo could be subject to Section 702 or other subpoenas, but this is presented as a general legal risk rather than evidence DuckDuckGo has complied with particular orders [3]. These analyses are useful for understanding exposure but are not the same as primary documentation showing receipt or compliance.
5. What would count as public evidence — and whether that exists here
Public evidence would include a company transparency report listing national-security orders, a court filing where the company is identified as recipient, or a government disclosure declassifying a notice. The material you provided contains no such item that names DuckDuckGo as a recipient of a FISA order or NSL; instead, it includes general legal background on NSLs/FISA, industry reporting practices, and DuckDuckGo’s privacy statements [5] [8] [6]. Therefore, the available sources do not mention any confirmed instance of DuckDuckGo receiving or complying with a FISA order or NSL.
6. How to interpret silence — competing reasonable views
One view: The absence of public confirmation suggests DuckDuckGo has not been compelled in a way that became public, and its design reduces the value of compelled search logs [6]. Alternate view: Due to gag orders and the U.S. legal regime described by Microsoft and NSL histories, DuckDuckGo could have received secret orders and be legally barred from saying so — meaning lack of public disclosure is inconclusive [1] [5]. Both interpretations are consistent with the documents you provided.
7. What further evidence would clarify the question
Look for (a) DuckDuckGo’s own transparency or government-request reports that explicitly list national-security demands; (b) court records or declassified FISC materials naming DuckDuckGo; or (c) government-published statistics that break out orders by provider. The current sources do not provide any of those items for DuckDuckGo [1] [9]. If you want, I can search for DuckDuckGo’s published transparency reports, public statements, or relevant court cases beyond the set you supplied.
Limitations: This analysis uses only the documents you provided; other reporting or company statements outside this set may exist but are not cited here.