As the federal government engages in chaotic data consolidation efforts across multiple agencies—ranging from DOGE to agency-to-agency data sharing with ICE—groups, individuals, and states are mounting legal challenges to protect personal privacy and voting rights.
The Origins of Federal Data Amalgamation Under DOGE
President Trump established DOGE on January 20, 2025, by effectively rebranding a pre-existing agency that had originally been tasked with updating government technology. It gained high-level access to sensitive federal databases containing millions of personal records. These repositories included files maintained by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the Treasury Department.
Staffed by individuals with little government or cybersecurity knowledge and who often had conflicts of interest, the initiative prioritized prompt, unclassified access and the sweeping sharing of records over traditional agency modernization. An individual working with DOGE at the Social Security Administration signed an outside agreement with an advocacy group intended to use SSA data to find evidence of alleged voter fraud and “overturn election results in certain States.”
Expanding Surveillance and Database Seizures for Immigration Enforcement
Following the reduction of DOGE’s influence, federal agencies pursued systematic cross-agency database comparisons to target immigrants. The Department of Agriculture also sought to collect databases regarding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP) from states.
EFF filed amicus briefs supporting Centro de Trabajadores v. Bessent regarding IRS data and California v. HHS regarding Medicaid data, partnering with EPIC and Protect Democracy. State authorities subsequently challenged federal efforts to seize commercial driver’s license data from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
The Weaponization of the SAVE System and Federal Voter Purges
Federal authorities used the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system—historically utilized since 1986 to check immigrant benefit eligibility—as a tool for checking voter eligibility. By 2025, the system facilitated bulk searches across new databases.
More than 60 million registered voters have been processed through SAVE, resulting in 21,000 flags for potential noncitizen status and subsequent voter roll purges affecting lawful citizens such as Anthony Nell. DHS, a lawsuit brought by CREW, Democracy Forward, the Fair Elections Center, and EPIC. Although a federal appellate court denied a stay, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the program via a six-to-three vote.
Simultaneously, the federal government demanded voter registration data from at least 48 states, prompting compliance from 16 states and triggering lawsuits against 30 non-compliant states. So far, courts have dismissed 25 of these suits, while civil rights organizations countered with Common Cause v. DOJ.
Executive Orders and the Creation of the Federal Voter Eligibility List
An executive order was signed by President Trump in March 2026, instructing the Department of Homeland Security to compile a roster of state residents who are U.S. citizens aged 18 or older.
Trump, arguing the order violates the constitutional separation of powers. Although a federal judge enjoined the program and an appellate court denied a stay, the Supreme Court granted a stay by a six-to-three margin, permitting the list’s compilation to advance. USCIS, claims the federal voter eligibility list violates both the Privacy Act of 1974 and the separation of powers doctrine.
Legislative Remedies and the Defense of Existing Privacy Standards
As litigation moves through federal courts, advocacy organizations and lawmakers advocate for structural legislative reforms to curb systemic data exploitation. Proposed statutory adjustments include closing enforcement loopholes in the Privacy Act of 1974 and passing the “Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act” to restrict law enforcement’s acquisition of commercial data brokers.
Legal challenges continue to test the limits of executive data amalgamation, leaving open the question of whether judicial remedies will permanently constrain inter-agency surveillance networks or if congressional intervention will be required to establish durable consumer data protections.
