Press Releases
PRESS RELEASE: Coalition Challenges Dramatic Data Privacy Changes to Federal Assistance Program
August 3, 2026
Trump-Vance Administration Seeks to Allow Family Support Program to be Weaponized by Immigration Officials
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A new legal challenge has been filed to the Trump-Vance administration’s effort to unlawfully and arbitrarily change a key data sharing policy to give federal and state agencies broad access to the sensitive personal information of current and past recipients of public benefits and their family members, including their Social Security Numbers and immigration status.
On June 23, 2026, the Office of Family Assistance (OFA), within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a notice saying it would grant other federal and state agencies, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in particular, access to information about individuals who received benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
These changes run counter to multiple statutes enacted to ensure that the personal and sensitive information TANF recipients provide about themselves and members of their households when enrolling in benefits are protected by the state agencies administering the program and by the federal agencies funding it. Moreover, the lawsuit describes how HHS is violating the Privacy Act, which requires federal agencies to notify the public and consider public input on new ways agencies plan to use personal information, to ensure that such uses are compatible with why the information was collected in the first place. Defendants’ arbitrary policy change is an attempt to unlawfully bypass the Privacy Act and other federal statutes and safeguards protecting sensitive information about TANF recipients.
TANF currently funds over $16 billion per year in grants to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several territories and tribal governments. It is a primary source of funding for federal and state government efforts to alleviate poverty and is a primary source of cash assistance for low-income families. The TANF program also helps fund a range of state benefits and services for very low-income families with children, including childcare assistance, employment and training programs, services for children at risk of neglect or abuse, and after-school youth programs.
The lawsuit filed by Make the Roads States, Common Cause, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), asserts that these changes violate several federal statutes that prohibit this type of broad disclosure of data, including the TANF statute itself, the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Computer Matching of Privacy Protection Act of 1988, and other federal statutes. They also challenge the policy as arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs are asking the court to enjoin the government from implementing this information disclosure policy. The plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward and the National Center for Law and Economic Justice in the matter.
“Masked ICE agents are abducting and disappearing immigrants – and U.S. citizens – using violence and unconstitutional tactics. Increasingly, ICE uses AI powered surveillance systems, developed by controversial Big Tech firms like Palantir to merge government data sets, including sensitive personal information that families have shared with the state and federal government while applying for benefits, to target these families for deportation. Today, we are proud to join Democracy Forward to stop the unlawful attempt of the administration to share TANF data with ICE and other federal agencies and private entities. Our members who have sought life sustaining, emergency benefits through TANF shouldn’t have to fear that this same information will be used to deport their families,” said Theo Oshiro, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road States.
“This administration is once again trying to exploit Americans’ personal information and put it to uses far beyond the pale,” said EPIC Deputy Director and Director of Enforcement John Davisson. “People who seek financial help for their families should not have to fear that their data will be weaponized for immigration enforcement or other adverse purposes. The Privacy Act requires meaningful public notice and a genuine opportunity to comment before agencies make far-reaching changes to their handling of personal information. That’s not just a box to check, it’s an essential safeguard against government overreach. The administration must follow the law.”
“TANF helps families meet a most basic need and to weaponize it like this is cruel and tears apart the safety net that Congress created,” said Jay Young, Common Cause Senior Policy Director for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. “If allowed to happen, this could cause children to go without food as families fear repercussions. Common Cause has taken action in dozens of cases across the country to protect American’s private information from being weaponized by this Administration. We are proud to take action to protect our most vulnerable communities and their families.”
“This is yet another unlawful example of the Trump-Vance administration trying to usurp public benefit programs for uses totally unrelated to the purpose of those programs,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “Weaponizing a program created to help those in the most need is a callous abuse of power, and we are honored to work with these plaintiffs to fight for people’s rights to participate in our democracy and protect their privacy.”
“Once again, this lawless administration is trying to circumvent the basic legal guardrails meant to protect communities from government overreach and abuse,” said Saima Akhtar, Senior Attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice. “We are asking the Court to stop this deeply harmful data sharing proposal.”
The case is Make the Road States v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Read today’s complaint here.
Please contact [email protected] with requests for further comment.
###
ABOUT EPIC
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) was established in 1994 to protect privacy, freedom of expression, and democratic values in the information age. Our mission is to secure the fundamental right to privacy in the digital age for all people through advocacy, research, and litigation.
Support Our Work
EPIC's work is funded by the support of individuals like you, who allow us to continue to protect privacy, open government, and democratic values in the information age.
Donate
Facts Only
* A legal challenge was filed against the Trump-Vance administration's effort to change a data sharing policy.
* The policy sought to grant federal and state agencies broad access to personal information of current and past TANF recipients and their family members, including Social Security Numbers and immigration status.
* On June 23, 2026, the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) published a notice granting other federal and state agencies access to information about individuals who received TANF benefits.
* The challenge alleges the changes violate statutes such as the TANF statute, the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Computer Matching of Privacy Protection Act of 1988.
* The lawsuit challenges the policy as arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
* The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop the government from implementing the information disclosure policy.
* TANF funds over $16 billion annually for states, the District of Columbia, and territories.
* Plaintiffs are Make the Road States, Common Cause, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
* Theo Oshiro stated that masked ICE agents use government data to target families for deportation.
* John Davisson stated that personal information should not be used to weaponize family support for immigration enforcement.
Executive Summary
A legal challenge has been filed against the Trump-Vance administration's policy change to allow federal and state agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), broad access to sensitive personal information of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients and their families. The action stems from a notice published by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) in June 2026, which indicated that such data would be shared with agencies like DHS. Plaintiffs argue these changes violate federal statutes, including the Privacy Act of 1974, and challenge the policy as arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit asserts that this information sharing is an attempt to unlawfully bypass legal safeguards protecting sensitive information collected during benefit applications.
The TANF program provides significant funding for poverty alleviation, state benefits, and services for low-income families. Plaintiffs contend that allowing this data to be shared with immigration enforcement agencies, particularly those using AI-powered surveillance systems, risks weaponizing family support for deportation and other adverse purposes. Advocates argue that such disclosure violates the necessity of public notification and input required by the Privacy Act, asserting that the collection of this data should remain protected to prevent its misuse against vulnerable populations seeking essential benefits.
Full Take
The narrative presents a confrontation between the established legal and privacy frameworks designed to protect vulnerable populations and executive action seeking expansive data access for enforcement purposes. The core tension lies in the conflict between an administrative desire for broad governmental utility (using data for immigration enforcement) and the statutory safeguards intended to restrict that use, particularly concerning sensitive information related to poverty relief.
The pattern observed involves framing a public benefit program—designed for assistance—as a source of exploitable leverage. This frames the process not as an administrative act requiring review under the Privacy Act, but as an opportunity for agency overreach, specifically targeting groups reliant on federal support. The invocation of terms like "weaponize" and "public benefit" serves to elicit a strong moral response against the perceived abuse of power directed at families.
The implication is that when systems of public assistance intersect with immigration enforcement, the mechanisms designed to provide support are repurposed as tools for control. The resistance articulated by the plaintiffs relies on establishing the inherent dignity of data privacy and the necessity of procedural safeguards (notice and input) as essential checks against state power. The debate shifts from what data can be shared, to whether any sharing is permissible given its context within established legal protections.
What are the unspoken assumptions about the necessity of such broad data linkages for effective public safety versus the intrinsic right of individuals to privacy in their most vulnerable circumstances? If the systems developed for aid are co-opted for enforcement, what long-term consequences follow for trust in government structures designed for protection?
Sentinel — Human
This text functions as a press release synthesizing a formal legal challenge with strong advocacy positions; it is structured around existing claims rather than generating novel argumentative content.