Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., warned Social Security Administration chief Frank Bisignano that any follow-through on President Donald Trump’s executive order creating a new database of U.S. voters using agency data would be viewed by Democrats as a conscious choice on the part of SSA officials to participate in “blatant voter suppression.”

“Facilitating Donald Trump’s directive to create a flawed voter database would be willing participation in blatant voter suppression ahead of consequential midterm elections,” Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, wrote in a letter to Bisignano sent Friday.

The executive order, issued March 31, directs the Homeland Security secretary, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to compile lists of American voters for each state, including their supposed citizenship status.

To build the lists, the agencies would rely on the controversial Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database that DHS has been building under the Trump administration, as well as Social Security and federal citizenship and naturalization records.

Those lists would then be transmitted to states, most of which have already rejected previous Trump administration efforts to collect voter data or dictate voter registration lists. Another section of the order would direct the postmaster general to develop a similar state-by-state list of voters eligible to vote by mail.

“The clear intent of this executive order is to undermine vote-by-mail and disenfranchise eligible voters,” Wyden wrote. “SSA has a duty to ensure its data is not misused as part of this effort.”

Wyden echoed numerous state officials and election experts in calling the Trump administration’s executive order an unconstitutional encroachment by the executive branch on election authorities that the U.S. Constitution clearly delineates to Congress and the states.

The White House’s executive order has already been challenged in lawsuits from states officials and voting rights advocates, and a previous, less ambitious executive order issued last year that attempted to assert similar executive branch authorities was largely overturned by U.S. courts.

Wyden’s missive essentially asks Bisignano to consider whether following the Trump administration’s order would conflict with his responsibility to safeguard Social Security records under laws like the Privacy Act and the Social Security Act.

He asks how the agency will ensure it’s not disenfranchising voters, and whether it sought permission from citizens to use their Social Security data for a federal elections list, noting that the agency’s own regulations limit the sharing of Social Security data to “routine use for determining eligibility or amount of benefit in a health or income maintenance program.”

Expanding the agency’s role to elections — an area it has no background or experience in — would be in direct conflict with those rules.

“Simply put, sharing Americans’ personal data to DHS for creating a ‘state citizenship’ list does not meet this standard,” Wyden wrote.

The post Wyden warns Social Security chief: Trump’s voter database is ‘blatant voter suppression’ appeared first on CyberScoop.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday that purports to limit mail-in voting, though critics say the move will almost certainly be challenged in court on constitutional grounds.

The order instructs the Homeland Security secretary, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to compile lists of American voters for each state, including their supposed citizenship status.

To build the lists, the agencies would rely on the controversial Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements database that DHS has been building under the Trump administration, as well as Social Security and federal citizenship and naturalization records.

Those lists would then be transmitted to states, most of which have already rejected previous Trump administration efforts to collect voter data or dictate voter registration lists. The White House order instructs the Department of Justice to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local officials or any others involved in the administration of federal elections who issue federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a federal election.  

The order also directs the postmaster general to issue new proposed regulations that require mail-in ballots to be mailed in special envelopes that include barcodes for tracking. Crucially, it asks states ahead of time whether they intend to submit a list of voters eligible to vote by mail, and attempts to assert the authority to deny sending ballots to states that do not participate. It also claims the attorney general is entitled to withhold federal funding from noncompliant states.

The Trump administration’s previous efforts to aggressively assert executive branch authority over elections have been rebuffed by courts, with judges noting the U.S. Constitution explicitly empowers states and Congress to set the time, manner and place for elections. 

The order justifies White House involvement by claiming it has “an unavoidable duty” under Article II of the Constitution to maintain confidence in election outcomes by preventing violations of criminal law. But numerous post-election audits, investigations and recounts have consistently confirmed over decades that criminal non-citizen voting is infinitesimally rare in U.S. elections, and for the small number that did, most turn out to be accidents or decades-old administrative errors.

Criticism from election officials, experts and Democrats in Congress was swift.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, who has resisted demands by the DOJ to hand over state voter data, predicted the order “will meet the same fate” as previous executive orders in being struck down by courts. Other secretaries of state have issued similar statements rejecting the order’s constitutionality. 

“Our office has helped stop his actions before and we are now exploring our legal options to stop this new order from taking effect,” Simon said in a statement to CyberScoop.

He also stumped for mail-in voting, calling it a secure, trustworthy and convenient way for citizens to exercise their rights to vote. Local election officials “track every ballot” sent by mail and have a range of checks and safeguards to ensure they’re sent to only eligible voters and that voters can only cast one ballot.

“Absentee voters who choose to vote by mail must provide a matching ID number, sign their signature envelope, and have a witness sign their ballot envelope before returning their ballot,” Simon said. “All of that information is tracked digitally by election administrators. Voters are able to track the status of their ballot using our online ballot tracker tool. Any attempt to register or cast a ballot while ineligible is referred for investigation and potential prosecution.”

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., called the order a “blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power” and said he expected “immediate” lawsuits challenging its legality.

“The President and the Department of Homeland Security have no authority to commandeer federal elections or direct the independent Postal Service to undermine mail and absentee voting that nearly 50 million Americans relied on in 2024,” Padilla said in a statement. “A decade of lies about election fraud does not change the Constitution.”

David Becker, executive director for the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the administration’s latest mandates are so far outside the constitutional limits of the executive branch they will almost certainly be halted through lawsuits. 

“Some may freak out about this, but honestly, this is hilarious,” Becker wrote on Bluesky. “It’s clearly unconstitutional, will be blocked immediately, and the only thing it will accomplish is to make liberal lawyers wealthier. He might as well sign an EO banning gravity.”

However, while lower courts have consistently struck down previous orders and lawsuits from the White House, election experts have expressed concerns that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority — which has clashed with lower courts over the Trump administration’s constitutional authority — appeared receptive to the administration’s position in a recent oral argument.

Alexandra Chandler, director of the Free and Fair Elections program at nonprofit Protect Democracy, said in a statement that the White House order “is more like an attempted executive override” of state authority over elections.

“Meant to solve for a problem that exists only in the false rhetoric of the Trump administration and its political fortunes, the [order] is a classic example of their playbook to deceive the American people and disrupt the election process in order to deny any future results that don’t suit them,” Chandler said.

The post White House executive order purports to limit mail-in voting, mandate federal voter lists  appeared first on CyberScoop.

Following a federal raid on Fulton County, Georgia’s Elections Office, lawmakers and state election officials sharply criticized  the Trump administration, accusing the White House of chasing baseless internet conspiracy theories about fraud in the 2020 election. Officials also warned the raid could set a precedent for similar federal actions targeting the 2026 midterm elections.

According to Fulton County, federal officials seized 700 boxes of records related to the 2020 election, including physical ballots. The search warrant detailing a full list of records and evidence sought by the federal government remains sealed, however, details of the warrant were published by ProPublica Wednesday evening.

In a press conference Thursday, Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections Chair Sherri Allen said the county was already planning to hand over the information at a court hearing scheduled for early February. Meanwhile, Fulton County Commission Chair Robb Pitts expressed concerns about ballot security now that the ballots are no longer in county custody.

At the National Association of Secretaries of State winter conference, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said the federal raid should be a reminder “this can happen any point between now and this coming November.”

He also took a shot at the Trump administration’s state voter data collection efforts and the White House’s plan to conduct voter list maintenance “at the federal level.”

“Republican and Democratic secretaries: How does that make you feel about what they think about your integrity and professionalism?” Padilla said. “Those are your offices, your staff and teams.”

Jared Borg, a White House aide at the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, gave a speech Thursday detailing how the Trump administration is repurposing the federal SAVE database as a voter citizenship verification tool.  The database was historically used to track immigrant benefits, and Borg said the DOGE-led overhaul of SAVE in 2025 came in response to requests from states for better functionality to cross-check voters. Previously, SAVE charged states $1 for each name lookup and did not allow bulk searches. Now, Borg said, state officials can run “millions of queries at no cost.”

Afterwards, Borg faced numerous questions and criticisms from state secretaries and officials who challenged the federal government’s role in setting election rules.

Some Republican state officials, like Utah Lt. Governor Deidre Henderson, pushed back hard against the Trump administration’s approach with election officials, pointing to comments from Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and others.

“Things that have been said publicly, frankly, are quite appalling,” said Henderson, who oversees elections in her state. “She pretty much slandered all of us, and to me that’s problematic, to publicly claim that Secretaries of State are not doing our jobs and the federal government has to do it for us. That is not okay.”

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes told CyberScoop that he believes the federal government’s efforts are to serve “the grievance of one person, because he’s a sore loser, and it’s embarrassing.”

“This is outrageous that we’re still relitigating what happened six or seven years ago from a guy who is currently president of the United States,” Fontes said in an interview.

While he’s confident in the integrity of Arizona’s elections should a similar federal raid occur, Fontes noted the “enormous amount of power” prosecutors have. 

“They can do enormous damage to the integrity of systems, to the trust that people have in systems, to personal lives, and they can do it through this purportedly legal framework,” he said.

Borg said Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, along with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, would  provide further details on the administration’s plans during appearances at the conference on Friday.

Gabbard’s presence at the Fulton County raid has puzzled and alarmed veterans of ODNI’s election team and Democratic lawmakers. Among the concerned lawmakers is Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va, who sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee, which oversees ODNI. 

“Why is Tulsi Gabbard at an FBI raid on an election office in Fulton County?” asked Warner, who has long focused on election security issues, from boosting federal funding for states to replace outdated equipment and coordinating with ODNI’s election threats team.

By law, ODNI and its election team are supposed to focus on foreign threats from abroad, such as  disinformation campaigns and hack-and-leak operations carried out by hostile governments. Under the Biden administration, the office had a defined process for investigating, vetting and communicating intelligence about ongoing foreign threats to victims. The office also periodically updated Congress and the public about campaigns, including where they originated, what resources were being deployed and who was being targeted.

In these briefings, officials deliberately used neutral language and avoided partisan messaging to prevent the process from appearing politicized.

One possible rationale for Gabbard’s presence: right-wing media has circulated conspiracy theories that claim foreign countries like Venezuela, China or Italy conspired with the CIA and other federal agencies to remotely hack into U.S. voting machines. After U.S. forces raided Venezuela and removed President Nicolas Maduro from power, Trump retweeted a post about one such theory called “Hammer and Scorecard.”  Weeks earlier, Trump had suggested he intended to pursue prosecutions for election fraud.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has also directly connected ongoing immigration enforcement efforts in Minnesota to the administration’s push to collect sensitive voter data from states––either voluntarily or through lawsuits. The administration and some states have used this data to aggressively challenge the eligibility of legally registered voters. These challenges often target voters over minor paperwork errors that are decades old. Experts overwhelmingly say such errors have no meaningful impact on voters’  active registration status.  

The administration has sued dozens of states, but has lost repeatedly in court. Multiple federal courts have ruled that the DOJ’s demands as legally baseless and are an unconstitutional overreach by the executive branch.

On Thursday, 26 Senate Democrats demanded briefings from Bondi and other administration officials to answer questions about the data gathering efforts. The senators noted that courts have already thrown out the administration’s lawsuits in Oregon and California.  Meanwhile, 11 states–including Texas–have provided the administration with voter data, which has “dramatically increased” the amount of voter information flowing to the federal government.

“While most states are resisting this illegal voter roll grab, we are gravely concerned by the amount of sensitive data the Department has already amassed on millions of American voters,” the senators wrote. “The Department has failed to provide Congress, or the public, any information on how it is maintaining this vast amount of data, the guardrails in place to protect state voter information, how the data is to be used, or who in the federal government has access to this sensitive data.”

The post Lawmakers, election officials blast Trump administration after Fulton County raid  appeared first on CyberScoop.

Federal agencies often collect voluminous amounts of data on Americans to fulfill their missions and better understand the public’s needs.

But a new whitepaper from the Electronic Privacy Information Center argues that increasingly sophisticated and invasive data mining is now widespread throughout government, allowing machines — and not humans — to determine how data is connected and used to draw inferences about people, government policies and programs.

The collection of data on Americans — and the use of software to analyze and connect this information for policymaking — are a “constitutional minefield, rife with privacy disasters and standing invitations for government overstep and abuse,” wrote Abigail Kunkler, a law fellow at EPIC and author of the whitepaper.

The risk is particularly high when such tools are used to “predict” criminal or illegal behavior — a practice that she argued posed First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment risks. These predictions are unreliable, she claims, given the technological limitations, lack of meaningful data signals to track, and human biases that can turn these programs into weapons of oppression.

“For decades, scholars and advocates from all sides have argued that data mining is ineffective to combat illegal activity simply because the data is not there to mine,” Kunkler wrote. “Successful data mining in this context requires a high number of known instances of a particular behavior—in the millions at least—before a pattern can emerge.”

Kunkler argues these worries are more than hypothetical, making direct links between the dangers of aggressive government data mining and the Trump administration’s efforts to merge federal datasets from various agencies to create national databases on voters, U.S. citizens and immigration enforcement.

Further, she notes that the emergence of AI is going to kick these practices into overdrive, leading to agencies making spurious or misleading connections based on a technology that has not proven itself to be reliable.

“Armed with AI, data mining capabilities have escalated data collection, retention, and analysis at an unbelievable pace,” Kunkler wrote. “And alarmingly, the ghost of Total Information Awareness has been revived in the federal government’s reported plans to construct a massive and centralized repository of personal data, which it intends to mine as part of the Administration’s ruthless anti-immigrant and antidemocratic campaign.”

Reforming data mining laws (or passing new ones)

Kunkler argues in favor of legislative reforms to the Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act, a 2007 law that was originally intended to limit government data mining and require agencies to publicly disclose the types of data analysis they conduct. 

The law currently has no enforcement authority, so agencies face no consequences for failing to publish reports or for providing insufficient information. Agencies that do transmit such reports to Congress confidentially do not have to publicly report, making it harder to grasp the full extent of government data mining operations. Critically, the law only requires reporting for data mining programs that involve “pattern-based queries, searches, or other analyses” looking for predictive patterns or anomalies. Data mining that starts with “an initiating individual” and looks for potential connections or associations does not require public disclosure.

“The distinction allows for invasive searching without particularized suspicion,” Kunkler wrote. “The combination of AI-powered data mining and shrunken costs associated with data collection supercharges the government’s ability to use the ‘surveillance time machine’ and assemble digital dossiers on any given person at any time in their lives.”

Christopher Marcum, a former assistant director for open science and data policy at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Biden administration, told CyberScoop that while he shared concerns about potential government overreach around data mining, he believed it will take more than updating a two-decade old transparency law to meaningfully curb the practice.

“I would say that the train has left the station and the [Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act] hasn’t had any measurable effect on protecting against mosaic effects in the face of movements towards more blended data, data linkage and of course, AI,” Marcum said.

Instead, he argued that only comprehensive reforms by Congress can stop the government’s steady expansion of massive collection and analysis. He believes there is support in Congress for stronger action, pointing to bills like the American Privacy Rights Act—even though such efforts have often stalled due to factional disagreements — that could impose broader limits on government activity. 

Some members of Congress are arguing that the dangers of empowering the government to do whatever it wants with federal datasets is already a real and present threat. 

Thursday, Democratic Senators Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi requesting the Justice Department brief the Senate Rules and Judiciary Committees about the administration’s ongoing efforts to merge myriad federal and state datasets into a tool meant to check and verify citizenship of U.S. voters.

That effort has included major technical revamps of the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database managed within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by members of the Department of Government Efficiency, as well as the merging data culled from the Social Security Administration.

“Put simply, it is neither the Department’s job nor its skillset to micromanage how election officials purge voters from state voter rolls,” Padilla and Durbin wrote.

The post Report: Government data mining has gone too far – and AI will make it worse appeared first on CyberScoop.