The Trump administration has come under fire for an initiative aimed at rapidly accumulating sensitive personal information from millions of residents across the United States.
This latest strategy involves tapping into vast databases maintained by state governments, with implications for enhanced immigration enforcement that challenge established norms and raise significant legal questions.
Nicole Schneidman, head of the technology and data governance team at Protect Democracy, expressed serious concerns about this trend. She stated that Americans should recognize that the data they currently entrust to state governments is now a prime target for potential federal use.
In a striking example of this data gathering effort, the Department of Agriculture recently instructed state governments to hand over names, Social Security numbers, addresses, and birth dates of tens of millions of individuals who have applied for federal food assistance via the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the past five years. States that refuse to comply risk the loss of crucial federal funding.
Simultaneously, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has issued subpoenas to various states and localities for records containing personal information about noncitizens. This includes sensitive data concerning applicants for a California program that provides monthly financial support to low-income, elderly, or disabled legal immigrants who do not qualify for Social Security.
Additionally, recent actions by federal health officials have seen data about millions of Medicaid recipients transferred from several states to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which handles immigration enforcement.
This data-sharing expansion is bolstered by an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March, titled “Stopping Waste, Fraud and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos.” The order mandates that federal agencies operate with “unfettered access” to information from state programs receiving federal funding, including data held by third parties.
While proponents argue that such data sharing can reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and combat fraud, critics warn that it can breach existing federal laws designed to protect individuals’ personal data.
The Privacy Act of 1974 stipulates that federal agencies must notify the public about their intended use of personal data and cannot use that data for purposes beyond what was initially disclosed. Privacy advocates voice alarm over the potential ramifications of federal agencies acquiring sensitive state-held data and its possible misuse in developing comprehensive surveillance instruments targeting American citizens.
Schneidman highlighted the irreversibility of such data once it falls into inappropriate hands, noting that its aggregation could lead to wide-ranging abuses. She pointed to instances in other countries where data has been weaponized to suppress dissent on a large scale.
In defense of the data collection initiatives, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers claimed that President Trump is merely streamlining data collection across agencies to increase efficiency and save taxpayer money. Rogers dismissed criticism as biased, maintaining the administration’s commitment to safeguarding American privacy.
Immigration enforcement has become a focal point in the Trump administration’s data consolidation agenda. For several months, the administration has pursued the integration of data across federal agencies, aiming to identify and eliminate instances of ineligible noncitizens receiving public benefits. This effort coincides with strengthened deportation strategies.
Under the auspices of the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, led initially by tech billionaire Elon Musk, significant strides have been made in merging federal databases with a focus on noncitizens and their eligibility for public assistance.
The data transfer involving Medicaid appears to be one of the most extensive instances of sensitive state-held information being shared across federal agencies to date.
Reports indicate that high-ranking officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ordered staff at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to furnish sensitive data from multiple states regarding millions of Medicaid enrollees, specifically focusing on individuals in California, Illinois, Washington, and Washington, D.C.
These states permit some noncitizens who do not qualify for federal Medicaid to enroll in a state-funded variant of the program. However, many state officials have expressed outrage over the sharing of this sensitive data with DHS.
Melissa Kula, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, conveyed deep concerns about the integrity and privacy promises previously made by CMS regarding the confidentiality of shared information.
California’s Governor Gavin Newsom referred to the federal move as “legally dubious” and highlighted potential violations of multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974, the Social Security Act, and the health privacy law known as HIPAA. California’s U.S. senators have urged DHS to destroy the Medicaid data it has received.
Public information officers from California, Illinois, and Washington have stated they have yet to receive any notification from CMS regarding the recent data transfer, hampering their ability to confirm what information DHS now holds.
Despite expectations to keep detailed Medicaid enrollment data confidential, including names and immigration status, the recent disclosure suggests a shift in policy.
Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for Health and Human Services, contended that the transfer was a standard lawful interagency data sharing effort, aimed at ensuring that federal benefits are not being fraudulently accessed by undocumented immigrants. Nixon characterized the transfer as part of a crack down path initiated by CMS Director Mehmet Oz, who has emphasized the need to protect federal funds from misuse.
Both Nixon and a DHS spokesperson noted that the data-sharing initiative is intended to guarantee that illegal aliens do not receive Medicaid benefits meant for lawful residents. However, some experts argue that any sharing of sensitive Medicaid data with immigration authorities could constitute an unauthorized repurposing of that information.
Jeffrey Grant, a former CMS official with three decades of experience, voiced alarm over the transfer, arguing that such actions breach established protocols surrounding data protection.
The recent Medicaid data transfer has ignited fears among privacy and democracy advocates, who warn this may mark a critical juncture in the federal government’s attempts to access sensitive data from states.
Elizabeth Laird from the Center for Democracy and Technology voiced concern over the implications that this could deter states from cooperating with future federal data requests, making vulnerable populations reluctant to apply for benefits they desperately need.
As Congress is currently deliberating major cuts to Medicaid and other aspects of the federal social safety net, the timing of these data-sharing practices raises additional concerns about their ramifications for society’s most vulnerable individuals.
Ami Fields-Meyer, a senior fellow specializing in civil liberties and technology, criticized the administration’s approach, asserting that it seems purposefully designed to integrate critical assistance services into a system that pursues immigrants for enforcement action.
The series of Medicaid data-sharing measures comes alongside directives from the USDA compelling states to disclose personal details about millions of SNAP recipients.
Though some states have expressed intent to comply with USDA’s demands, the directive has met resistance as legal challenges emerge from those asserting violations of federal privacy laws. Following a federal lawsuit against the USDA, a senior official confirmed in court documents that steps would not proceed until the department adheres to all legal requirements for data protection.
In an officially sanctioned public notice, the USDA announced its intent to collect SNAP data in accordance with the Privacy Act, asserting that it plans to verify applicant eligibility and immigration status using federal databases, though the language suggests broader potential uses than previous data collections.
The USDA’s Office of Inspector General is continuing to pursue personal data on SNAP participants under the guise of evaluating the program’s integrity and quality, raising alarms about a growing trend toward invasive data requests.
Various conservative activists have championed a framework called Project 2025, which promotes increased state data sharing for immigration enforcement. The plan suggests linking federal grants to states and localities to total information access for law enforcement and immigration purposes.
This follows past practices wherein the first Trump administration sought similar information from states, particularly concerning voter data.
Currently, federal agencies including DOGE and DHS are assessing state voter rolls to identify noncitizens following presidential directives.
Legal and ethical concerns surrounding data sharing initiatives by the federal government have prompted states to reassess their responses, particularly when balancing state privacy laws and compliance with federal data requests.
States like Colorado and Illinois are contemplating their approaches to comply with new regulations while protecting resident privacy rights and accessing essential federal funds.
Legal experts warn that the recent surge in ICE subpoenas for sensitive information may not hold up in court, urging states to approach compliance cautiously while prioritizing confidentiality and protection of their residents’ data.
As public sentiment shifts, states are increasingly wary about complying with federal requests, especially in light of potential federal retaliation through funding cuts or punitive measures.
Amid this evolving landscape, privacy advocates remain vigilant, reflecting on the precedent of bipartisan resistance to excessive federal data demands observed during the first Trump administration.
As the situation develops, the actions taken by states in response to these federal data-sharing initiatives will likely influence the future dynamics of data privacy and governmental authority.
image source from：npr
