20 states sue after the Trump administration releases private Medicaid data to deportation officials
Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s advisers ordered the release of a dataset that includes the private health information of people living in California, Illinois, Washington state, and Washington, D.C., to the Department of Homeland Security last month, The Associated Press first reported last month. All of those states allow non-U.S. citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs that pay for their expenses using only state taxpayer dollars.
The unusual data sharing of private health information, including addresses, names, social security numbers, immigration status, and claims data for enrollees in those states, was released to deportation officials as they accelerated enforcement efforts across the country. The data could be used to help the Department of Homeland Security locate migrants in its mass deportation campaign, experts said.
Bonta said the Trump administration's data release violates federal health privacy protection laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
'This is about flouting seven decades of federal law policy and practice that have made it clear that personal healthcare data is confidential and can only be shared in certain narrow circumstances that benefit the public's health or the Medicaid program,' Bonta said during a news conference on Tuesday.
The Trump administration has sought to arm deportation officials with more data on immigrants. In May, for example, a federal judge refused to block the Internal Revenue Service from sharing immigrants' tax data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to help agents locate and detain people living without legal status in the U.S.
The move to shore up the federal government's data on immigrant Medicaid enrollees appears to have been set in motion in May, when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it would be reviewing some states rolls to ensure federal funds have not been used to pay for coverage for people with 'unsatisfactory immigration status.'
As part of the review, CMS asked California, Washington and Illinois to share details about non-U.S. citizens who have enrolled in their state's Medicaid program, according to a June 6 memo signed by Medicaid Deputy Director Sara Vitolo that was obtained by the AP. The memo was written by several CMS officials under Vitolo's supervision, according to sources familiar with the process.
CMS officials attempted to fight the data sharing request from Homeland Security, saying that to do so would violate federal laws, including the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, according to the memo.
The legal arguments outlined in the memo were not persuasive to Trump appointees at HHS, which oversees the Medicaid agency.
Four days after the memo was sent, on June 10, HHS officials directed the transfer of 'the data to DHS by 5:30 ET today,' according to email exchanges obtained by AP.
HHS is 'aggressively cracking down on states that may be misusing federal Medicaid funds,' agency spokesman Andrew Nixon said in a statement. The agency has not provided details on DHS' role in the effort. Nixon also defended the legality of releasing the data to DHS.
'HHS acted entirely within its legal authority – and in full compliance with all applicable laws – to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them,' he said in the statement.
Dozens of Democratic members of Congress — in both the House and Senate — have sent letters to the involved agencies, demanding that data sharing cease and that Homeland Security destroy the information it has received so far. —
Associated Press writer Olga R. Rodriguez in San Francisco contributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Young Pierce County voters see their ballots challenged due to poor penmanship
Voters in Pierce County between the ages of 18 and 26 account for 51% of challenged ballots in Pierce County due to their signatures not matching those on file, the Pierce County Elections office announced in a recent news release. If the signature on a ballot envelope doesn't match the signature on file, that vote won't count, the office said. Pierce County recently sent a postcard to 73,000 voters aged 18 to 26 (in addition to 17-year-olds eligible to vote in the 2025 general election), encouraging them to update their signature online at the Pierce County Elections website. In Pierce County 9.4% of 18-year-old voters have had signature issues and 7.9% of 19-year-olds, according to the county. During the 2024 presidential election, Pierce County saw a strong voter turnout, with 76.73% of registered voters casting ballots. 'It's an interesting challenge,' said Pierce County Auditor Linda Farmer in a June news release. 'On the one hand, we have more young voters in the system, which is awesome. On the other, we're capturing that baseline signature while their handwriting styles are still developing. This often shows up as a mismatch when they cast their first ballot.' Signature mismatches in Pierce County are declining (0.46% of ballots were rejected for that reason in 2024, down from 0.56% in 2020 and 0.86% in 2016), according to the county. 'Young people don't have to sign things on a regular basis like those of us in other generations (I'm Gen X), so it's an interesting conundrum,' Farmer said in an email. 'We're trying to get the word out to this age group in particular.' Farmer said her 18-year-old daughter is a classic example of the issue. She registered to vote when she was 16 under the state's future voter program, 'but her signature today is practically unrecognizable from the one she gave at the driver licensing office. And it's only been two years,' she said. In 2019, Washington established the Future Voter Program, allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote and automatically receive a ballot once they turn 18. In 2022, a new law made voters eligible to participate in the August primary if they will be 18 by the November general election, according to Pierce County. 'The trend is moving in the right direction,' Farmer said. 'I'd love to see signature challenges become a non-issue.' Learn more about how to register to vote, who your candidates will be and where your nearest ballot box is online at the Pierce County Elections website. The primary election is Aug. 5.
Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump rides major wave of momentum going into July Fourth after Iran, BBB, Supreme Court and lawsuit victories
President Donald Trump is riding a major wave of momentum after he signed his $3.3 trillion "big, beautiful bill" Friday – a final notch in a series of wins for his administration in recent weeks. The bill's passage comes on the heels of other significant victories for his administration, including a Supreme Court ruling in his favor and successful strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. "President Trump has delivered more wins for the American people in two weeks than most Presidents do in four years," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Thursday statement to Fox News Digital. "This has been the most historic two weeks of any Administration in history. Thanks to President Trump, America is back and is the hottest country in the world!" The tax and domestic policy bill arrived on his desk after the House passed the final version of the measure Thursday – meeting Trump's self-imposed Fourth of July deadline to get the measure over the finish line. The bill includes key provisions that would permanently establish individual and business tax breaks included in Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and incorporates new tax deductions to cut duties on tips and overtime pay. The measure also raises the debt limit by $5 trillion – a provision that has faced scrutiny from figures such as SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Furthermore, the bill rescinds certain Biden-era green energy tax credits, and allocates approximately $350 billion for defense and Trump's mass deportation initiative to weed out illegal immigrants from the U.S. The measure also institutes Medicaid reforms, including new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for Medicaid recipients, and expands work requirements for those on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Here are some other recent events that have gone in the Trump administration's favor: The U.S. launched strikes June 21 targeting key Iranian nuclear facilities, which involved more than 125 U.S. aircraft, according to Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Following the strikes, Trump said in an address to the nation that the mission left the nuclear sites "completely and totally obliterated," and Caine said that initial battle damage assessments suggested "all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction." Still, Caine acknowledged that a final assessment would "take some time." But days later, a leaked report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, published by CNN and the New York Times, cast doubt on those claims, saying that the strikes had only set back Iran's nuclear program by several months. However, the Pentagon said Wednesday that internal intelligence assessments indicate the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by one or two years. "We have degraded their program by one to two years, at least intel assessments inside the Department (of Defense) assess that," Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell told reporters Wednesday. The Supreme Court ruled, 6–3, to block the lower courts from issuing universal injunctions on June 27. Multiple executive orders Trump has signed during his second administration have been tied up in the courts as a result of nationwide injunctions, including his ban on birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court's ruling means that lower courts are only permitted to issue broad injunctions in limited cases, which Trump said would prevent a "colossal abuse of power." "I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months, we've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers," Trump said on June 27. CBS News' parent company, Paramount Global, Tuesday agreed to a $16 million settlement with Trump, stemming from a lawsuit Trump filed against CBS in October 2024 related to a "60 Minutes" interview with his opponent in the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris. In the lawsuit, Trump alleged that CBS deceptively edited the interview with Harris when asked about why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't "listening" to the Biden administration. While the segment aired one answer from Harris during a primetime special on the network, a less polished answer had previously appeared in a preview clip of the interview. The money from the settlement will not go to Trump himself, but rather, toward his future presidential library and to cover the plaintiffs' fees and costs. CBS said it worked with a mediator to reach the settlement agreement and that Paramount will not issue an apology.
CNET
41 minutes ago
- CNET
Congress Won't Block State AI Regulations. Here's What That Means for Consumers
After months of debate, a plan in Congress to block states from regulating artificial intelligence was pulled from the big federal budget bill this week. The proposed 10-year moratorium would have prevented states from enforcing rules and laws on AI if the state accepted federal funding for broadband access. The issue exposed divides among technology experts and politicians, with some Senate Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the move. The Senate eventually voted 99-1 to remove the proposal from the bill, which also includes the extension of the 2017 federal tax cuts and cuts to services like Medicaid and SNAP. Congressional Republican leaders have said they want to have the measure on President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Tech companies and many Congressional Republicans supported the moratorium, saying it would prevent a "patchwork" of rules and regulations across states and local governments that could hinder the development of AI -- especially in the context of competition with China. Critics, including consumer advocates, said states should have a free hand to protect people from potential issues with the fast-growing technology. "The Senate came together tonight to say that we can't just run over good state consumer protection laws," Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement. "States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws. This also allows us to work together nationally to provide a new federal framework on artificial intelligence that accelerates US leadership in AI while still protecting consumers." Despite the moratorium being pulled from this bill, the debate over how the government can appropriately balance consumer protection and supporting technology innovation will likely continue. "There have been a lot of discussions at the state level, and I would think that it's important for us to approach this problem at multiple levels," said Anjana Susarla, a professor at Michigan State University who studies AI. "We could approach it at the national level. We can approach it at the state level, too. I think we need both." Several states have already started regulating AI The proposed moratorium would have barred states from enforcing any regulation, including those already on the books. The exceptions are rules and laws that make things easier for AI development and those that apply the same standards to non-AI models and systems that do similar things. These kinds of regulations are already starting to pop up. The biggest focus is not in the US, but in Europe, where the European Union has already implemented standards for AI. But states are starting to get in on the action. Colorado passed a set of consumer protections last year, set to go into effect in 2026. California adopted more than a dozen AI-related laws last year. Other states have laws and regulations that often deal with specific issues such as deepfakes or require AI developers to publish information about their training data. At the local level, some regulations also address potential employment discrimination if AI systems are used in hiring. "States are all over the map when it comes to what they want to regulate in AI," said Arsen Kourinian, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown. So far in 2025, state lawmakers have introduced at least 550 proposals around AI, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the House committee hearing last month, Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, signaled a desire to get ahead of more state-level regulation. "We have a limited amount of legislative runway to be able to get that problem solved before the states get too far ahead," he said. Read more: AI Essentials: 29 Ways to Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts While some states have laws on the books, not all of them have gone into effect or seen any enforcement. That limits the potential short-term impact of a moratorium, said Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, managing director in Washington for IAPP. "There isn't really any enforcement yet." A moratorium would likely deter state legislators and policymakers from developing and proposing new regulations, Zweifel-Keegan said. "The federal government would become the primary and potentially sole regulator around AI systems," he said. What a moratorium on state AI regulation would mean AI developers have asked for any guardrails placed on their work to be consistent and streamlined. "We need, as an industry and as a country, one clear federal standard, whatever it may be," Alexandr Wang, founder and CEO of the data company Scale AI, told lawmakers during an April hearing. "But we need one, we need clarity as to one federal standard and have preemption to prevent this outcome where you have 50 different standards." During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in May, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, that an EU-style regulatory system "would be disastrous" for the industry. Altman suggested instead that the industry develop its own standards. Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, if industry self-regulation is enough at the moment, Altman said he thought some guardrails would be good, but, "It's easy for it to go too far. As I have learned more about how the world works, I am more afraid that it could go too far and have really bad consequences." (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, parent company of CNET, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.) Not all AI companies are backing a moratorium, however. In a New York Times op-ed, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called it "far too blunt an instrument," saying the federal government should create transparency standards for AI companies instead. "Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed." A proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI laws is now in the hands of the US Senate, where its Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has already held hearings on artificial intelligence. Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images Concerns from companies, both the developers that create AI systems and the "deployers" who use them in interactions with consumers, often stem from fears that states will mandate significant work such as impact assessments or transparency notices before a product is released, Kourinian said. Consumer advocates have said more regulations are needed and hampering the ability of states could hurt the privacy and safety of users. A moratorium on specific state rules and laws could result in more consumer protection issues being dealt with in court or by state attorneys general, Kourinian said. Existing laws around unfair and deceptive practices that are not specific to AI would still apply. "Time will tell how judges will interpret those issues," he said. Susarla said the pervasiveness of AI across industries means states might be able to regulate issues such as privacy and transparency more broadly, without focusing on the technology. But a moratorium on AI regulation could lead to such policies being tied up in lawsuits. "It has to be some kind of balance between 'we don't want to stop innovation,' but on the other hand, we also need to recognize that there can be real consequences," she said. Much policy around the governance of AI systems does happen because of those so-called technology-agnostic rules and laws, Zweifel-Keegan said. "It's worth also remembering that there are a lot of existing laws and there is a potential to make new laws that don't trigger the moratorium but do apply to AI systems as long as they apply to other systems," he said. What's next for federal AI regulation? One of the key lawmakers pushing for the removal of the moratorium from the bill was Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. Blackburn said she wanted to make sure states were able to protect children and creators, like the country musicians her state is famous for. "Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can't block states from standing in the gap to protect vulnerable Americans from harm -- including Tennessee creators and precious children," she said in a statement. Groups that opposed the preemption of state laws said they hope the next move for Congress is to take steps toward actual regulation of AI, which could make state laws unnecessary. If tech companies "are going to seek federal preemption, they should seek federal preemption along with a federal law that provides rules of the road," Jason Van Beek, chief government affairs officer at the Future of Life Institute, told me. Ben Winters, director of AI and data privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, said Congress could take up the idea of pre-empting state laws again in separate legislation. "Fundamentally, it's just a bad idea," he told me. "It doesn't really necessarily matter if it's done in the budget process."
