EFF and Others Challenge Federal Government Data Consolidation and Surveillance

This data amassing unfolded in three primary waves: the creation and early actions of DOGE, expanded agency-to-agency data sharing targeting immigrants through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and automated voter purges driven by federal database seizures.

The Tech TL;DR:

• Federal agencies systematically consolidated vast personal datasets from the Social Security Administration, OPM, IRS, and state voter registries starting in January 2025.
• The expansion of legacy verification tools like the SAVE database and new federal voter eligibility lists have led to the wrongful flagging and purging of lawful voters.
• Trump—challenging these data grabs under the Privacy Act of 1974.

DOGE Accesses Sensitive Federal Databases

President Trump created DOGE on January 20, 2025, repurposing an existing government technology modernization initiative to obtain high-level access to sensitive federal databases. According to the EFF, these systems included millions of personal records housed at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the Treasury Department. Staffed with individuals holding limited cybersecurity credentials, DOGE prioritized the rapid sharing and consolidation of unclassified agency records.

The EFF, alongside co-counsel at Lex Lumina LLC and Democracy Defenders Fund, filed a lawsuit on behalf of two public employee unions—the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ)—against the OPM for unlawfully disclosing federal workers’ records. While early court victories forced the government to curtail some DOGE agent access, structural vulnerabilities and data exposure remain unmitigated.

Immigrant Targeting Through Inter-Agency Data Sharing

As DOGE’s footprint shifted, federal agencies aggressively expanded inter-agency data sharing to target immigrant populations. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding Medicaid data, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) all faced coordinated federal efforts to seize and compare large record repositories.

Legal challenges followed these actions immediately.

The Expansion of the SAVE System and Voter Roll Purges

Originally established in 1986, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system functions as an API gateway to government databases rather than a standalone database. In 2025, the federal administration repurposed SAVE to vet voter eligibility, executing bulk searches across more than 60 million voter files. This operational pivot flagged 21,000 individuals as potential noncitizens, resulting in the erroneous disenfranchisement of registered voters such as Anthony Nell.

A federal judge blocked this expansion in League of Women Voters v. DHS—a case brought by CREW, Democracy Forward, the Fair Elections Center, and EPIC. Although a federal appellate court denied the government’s request for a stay, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted a stay via its shadow docket by a six-to-three vote. Whistleblower reports indicate that DHS Fraud Detection and National Security Unit employees were reassigned to manually query state election portals, potentially violating state-level statutes governing voter record access.

State Resistance and the New Federal Voter Eligibility List

Beginning in 2025, federal authorities demanded that at least 48 states surrender their voter registration databases, with 16 states complying. To compel compliance from the remaining jurisdictions, the federal government initiated lawsuits against 30 recalcitrant states, though courts have dismissed 25 of those actions. A coalition including CREW, Protect Democracy, and the ACLU filed Common Cause v. DOJ to halt this centralized data collection.

These conflicts escalated in March 2026 when President Trump issued an executive order requiring DHS to construct a federal master list of U.S. citizens aged 18 and older. Twenty-four states challenged the order in California v. Trump, arguing it violates the constitutional separation of powers. A federal district court enjoined the program, and an appellate court denied a stay, but the U.S. Supreme Court once again intervened with a six-to-three vote to allow the federal eligibility list framework to proceed.

The open question remains whether existing statutory frameworks—specifically a half-century-old Privacy Act—can adapt to modern automated data consolidation, or if comprehensive federal consumer privacy legislation and the passage of measures like the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act will be required to halt unchecked government data broker surveillance.

Disclaimer: The technical analyses and security protocols detailed in this article are for informational purposes only. Always consult with certified IT and cybersecurity professionals before altering enterprise networks or handling sensitive data.