A coalition of states led by Democrats and several activist groups filed separate lawsuits on Monday against the administration of President Donald Trump over a new policy that will allow the federal government to share personal information of beneficiaries of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program with other federal agencies.
The measure, which is set to take effect on August 11, authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide certain records of millions of people receiving financial assistance to other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security. The information may include Social Security numbers, income, addresses, marital status, and immigration status.
The Trump administration has defended greater coordination among federal agencies to ensure that public resources are used in accordance with the law. Although the government has not explicitly stated that the change aims to strengthen the enforcement of immigration laws, the new policy comes amid a broader White House strategy to improve government information sharing and detect potential irregularities in taxpayer-funded programs.
A group of Democratic states sued the Donald Trump administration over its measures against illegal immigration
However, Democratic attorneys general argue that the measure poses a threat to the privacy of beneficiaries and could be used for immigration checks. California Attorney General, Democrat Rob Bonta, who leads one of the lawsuits, accused the administration of using a program intended to help low-income families to expand its surveillance capabilities.
The suing states seek to prevent the new policy from taking effect. Among them are California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, and other Democrat-led states, as well as the District of Columbia. The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Washington.
The Trump administration has not claimed that the modification is intended solely to facilitate deportations or immigration investigations. However, the change is part of previous efforts to allow different federal agencies to access information managed by other entities. The White House has also sought to review the use of public funds and detect potential cases of fraud or misuse of benefits.
The TANF was created by Congress in 1996 as part of a broad reform of the welfare system. The program provides approximately $16 billion annually to states, which use these resources to assist low-income families, especially those with children.
California's Democratic Attorney General, Rob Bonta, is one of the key players leading the legal challenges against the Republican administration
One of the main arguments of the states is that the original legislation granted state governments a broad margin to determine who qualifies for benefits. According to the plaintiffs, the new federal policy could interfere with that authority.
The Trump administration, for its part, has a broader argument in its favor: the federal government administers the funds that finance the program and has a legitimate interest in ensuring that taxpayer money goes exclusively to individuals who meet the requirements established by law. From this perspective, allowing greater coordination among agencies may help identify inconsistencies, prevent abuses, and improve oversight of public programs.
The states also argue that the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), a division of the HHS that administers TANF, violated the procedures established in the Administrative Procedure Act by modifying the rules without sufficiently explaining the change from previous practices. They also contend that the policy could violate federal standards on information sharing between agencies.
Donald Trump stated that the program to share beneficiary data aims to ensure that taxpayer money reaches individuals who comply with the law
A second lawsuit was filed in Brooklyn by organizations such as ''Make the Road States'', ''Common Cause'', and ''Electronic Frontier Foundation''. The groups raise similar arguments and assert that the policy threatens the privacy protections of beneficiaries.
Critics also warn that some immigrants may avoid applying for benefits to which they are entitled if they fear their data will be shared with federal authorities. In Maryland, for example, about 38,000 beneficiaries receive assistance from the program each month, while California has approximately 350,000 monthly beneficiary families.
The courts will now determine whether the HHS acted within its authority and whether the new policy complies with federal laws on privacy, administration of social programs, and information sharing between agencies.
