Privacy advocates assert that this wealth of data could allow the government to target political opponents by using personal information—like bankruptcies, criminal records, and medical claims—to impose penalties or disrupt benefits such as housing vouchers, retirement payments, and food assistance.
“They have not shown a single instance where fraud detection necessitated universal governmental access to everyone’s data,” stated Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland. “In fact, creating a vast uniform database containing all citizens’ information would invite fraud and political retribution against individuals.”
Mr. Raskin pointed out that this is akin to how personal data is monitored and utilized in authoritarian regimes. Countries like Russia and China amass citizen data to monitor dissenters and suppress opposition to the ruling government.
The White House did not specifically explain how it plans to protect and utilize the data it aims to gather, nor did it clarify if there is an intention to develop a centralized database, only mentioning its commitment to combating fraud.
“Waste, fraud, and abuse have been deeply ingrained in our dysfunctional system for far too long,” remarked White House spokesman Harrison Fields in a statement. “Direct access to the system is necessary to identify and resolve these issues.”
Technologists caution that attempting to merge complex data sets for decision-making regarding government programs—such as using artificial intelligence to detect waste in government spending, as discussed by allies of Musk—could lead to significant errors and real harm.
Moreover, national security experts highlight that a substantial aggregation of data on American citizens would be a lucrative target for hostile nation-states, hackers, and cybercriminals. U.S. officials have reported that countries such as China, Russia, and Iran have been implicated in significant breaches of U.S. government databases in recent years.
Data brokers and private companies that trade in data are also well-informed about Americans. However, privacy advocates emphasize a critical distinction in the extent of actions the federal government can take with that data. For instance, Google does not possess control over immigration enforcement, and Target cannot revoke Social Security payments.
“This raises a fundamental issue about privacy: It is not merely about whether anyone else in the world knows this information about me,” explained John Davisson, the director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who has filed a lawsuit against the administration to prevent DOGE from accessing financial records at the Treasury and personnel data from the Office of Personnel Management. “It’s about who knows this information about me, and what they can legally — or practically — do with it.”
