logo
20 US states sue Trump administration for releasing private Medicaid data to deportation officials

20 US states sue Trump administration for releasing private Medicaid data to deportation officials

New Indian Express20 hours ago
WASHINGTON: The Trump administration violated federal privacy laws when it turned over Medicaid data on millions of enrollees to deportation officials last month, California Attorney General Rob Bonta alleged on Tuesday, saying he and 19 other states' attorneys general have sued over the move.
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, DC, to the Department of Homeland Security, The Associated Press first reported last month. All of those states allow non-US 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 US.
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

India's foreign policy pragmatism is not a betrayal of principles. It cannot afford grandstanding
India's foreign policy pragmatism is not a betrayal of principles. It cannot afford grandstanding

Indian Express

time16 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

India's foreign policy pragmatism is not a betrayal of principles. It cannot afford grandstanding

In an era of relentless media cycles and performative politics, foreign policy is increasingly becoming a battleground for domestic posturing. The danger lies not just in what is said, but in how and why it's said. Moral absolutism is deployed selectively, outrage is amplified when convenient, and silence is deafening when facts challenge the preferred narrative. The framing of India's foreign policy as either morally courageous or morally bankrupt ignores diplomacy's layered complexities. Nations do not operate in binaries. They navigate shades of grey, often balancing principle with pragmatism. To cast India's foreign policy as a betrayal of historical moral commitments is not only reductionist, it is deeply dishonest. Take the Hamas attack on Israel — one of the most horrific terrorist acts in recent memory. For India — a victim of terrorism — moral clarity on such acts is not optional; it is foundational. To hesitate in condemning such violence is not intellectual sophistication — it is moral evasiveness. India rightly condemned this attack as terrorism. This was not a partisan statement. It was a reflection of India's consistent stance against terror. At the same time, it made clear its support for the Palestinian people — urging humanitarian access to Gaza, calling for the release of hostages, and providing over 65 tonnes of aid. India has donated over $65 million for Palestine's development in recent years and continues to fund infrastructure and education projects in the West Bank. Yet critics accuse it of abandoning its moral compass. On what basis? That it refused to take a simplistic, one-sided view of a multidimensional conflict? Or that it chose to engage both sides while prioritising the safety of Indian citizens and regional stability? Let us not forget: Diplomacy is not Twitter. It is not built for viral outrage. It is about safeguarding interests while promoting peace. Condemning terrorism while extending humanitarian support is not a contradiction — it is coherence. What often passes for foreign policy critique today seems a deliberate misreading of strategic imperatives. This becomes glaring when examining how critics invoke Iran, Israel, and the larger West Asian theatre. For example, the portrayal of Iran as an innocent, misunderstood actor wilfully ignores the concerns over its nuclear programme. According to the IAEA, Iran now holds over 400 kg of 60 per cent-enriched uranium — dangerously close to weapons-grade. Multiple inspections have found uranium traces at undeclared sites, and Iran continues to block full transparency. Yet, such critical developments are conveniently omitted. This is not nuance; it is misdirection. It seeks to equate Iran's opaque nuclear manoeuvres with Israel's alleged nuclear capabilities — a comparison that collapses under scrutiny. Israel has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, nor has it been found in violation of IAEA safeguards. Iran, by contrast, is a signatory and repeatedly non-compliant. To conflate the two is agenda-driven. Some romanticise India-Iran ties by citing Tehran's support for India at the 1994 UN Human Rights Commission vote on Kashmir. But this overlooks the evolving nature of Iran's foreign policy. Iran is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation — a bloc that routinely criticises India on Kashmir. In recent years, Tehran has echoed calls for 'restoration of rights' in J&K, aligning with positions India considers deeply problematic. Even the strategic relevance of the Chabahar Port is twisted into a narrative of Iranian altruism. The port's development depended heavily on India's backchannel diplomacy with the US, which provided a sanctions waiver. India's relationship with Iran has been cautious and transactional, shaped by oil trade, connectivity goals, and regional deterrence, not emotional solidarity. When it comes to Israel, let us not forget that full diplomatic ties were established not by today's government but under former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao. That decision reflected strategic foresight. Since then, ties have deepened. To now paint this trajectory as a betrayal of India's historical commitments is a politically convenient case of forgetting one's own legacy. India's nuanced response to the Iran-Israel escalation is another case in point. The Ministry of External Affairs issued a firm, balanced statement urging de-escalation, emphasising dialogue and diplomacy, and reiterating concern for Indians in both countries. Emergency protocols were activated to ensure the safety of thousands in the region. Critics labelled this approach muted. But what was the alternative? Publicly taking sides in a conflict — one with nuclear implications, energy security risks, and the diaspora's safety at stake? Is that responsible statecraft or reckless signalling? India's foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by geography, history, and hard power realities. Surrounded by two nuclear adversaries, locked in a matrix of regional alliances and dependencies, India cannot afford to grandstand. It must calculate every move with precision. Pragmatism is not a betrayal of principle — it is about preservation in a hostile world. The danger today is not India's diplomatic caution, it is the trend of a partisan foreign policy critique. Turning complex international issues into tools for domestic political attack is hazardous. It undermines national unity on external affairs, weakens credibility abroad, and sends conflicting signals. Foreign policy is not the arena for point-scoring. It demands strategic consistency, institutional memory, and national coherence. When every international issue is filtered through the lens of electoral calculations or ideological grievances, we do not get a better foreign policy — we get a fragmented one. What India needs today is clarity without chaos, values without vanity, and vision without vendetta. The world is not waiting for India to moralise. It is watching to see if India can lead — with balance, wisdom, and strategic resolve. The writer is a policy analyst and PhD scholar at Bennett University

Pete Hegseth thanks Jaishankar for strengthening Indo-US ties, defense pact, ‘salute our two great democracies'
Pete Hegseth thanks Jaishankar for strengthening Indo-US ties, defense pact, ‘salute our two great democracies'

Mint

time22 minutes ago

  • Mint

Pete Hegseth thanks Jaishankar for strengthening Indo-US ties, defense pact, ‘salute our two great democracies'

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Wednesday thanked EAM S Jaishankar for a productive meeting on advancing the India-US defence partnership, building on growing convergences of interests, capabilities and responsibilities. The two met on Tuesday on the sidelines of QUAD. Hegseth posted on X, 'Great meeting yesterday with Indian Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar' 'Thank you, Mr. Minister, for all you do to strengthen U.S.-India relations, especially our defense partnership. I salute our two great democracies' cooperation in securing a free and open Asia-Pacific,' he goes on to add. On Wednesday, the US has expressed hope that it can complete several major pending American defence sales to India, as it stressed that Washington and Delhi are 'mutually aware' of the security concerns in the Indo-Pacific region. Hegseth said, according to the Department of Defence (DoD) news article, the US and India are 'mutually aware of the security concerns in the region, and both nations have the ability to counter that threat together." He also emphasised on US efforts to equip India with the necessary tools to address security challenges in the Indo-Pacific. 'The United States is very pleased with the successful integration of many US defence items into India's inventory," Hegseth said, according to the DoD news article. "And building on this progress, we hope we can complete several major pending US defence sales to India, expand our shared defence industrial cooperation and coproduction efforts, strengthen interoperability ... between our forces, and then formally sign a new 10-year Framework for the US-India Major Defence Partnership ... which we hope to do very soon." Jaishankar, meanwhile, said, 'We believe that our defence partnership is, today, truly one of the most consequential pillars of the relationship. "It's not built merely on shared interest, but we believe really deepening convergence and of capabilities, of responsibilities and what we do in the Indo-Pacific, we believe, is absolutely crucial to its strategic stability," he said. (With inputs from agencies)

Judge ends order blocking deportation of family of man charged in Boulder firebomb attack
Judge ends order blocking deportation of family of man charged in Boulder firebomb attack

The Hindu

time22 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

Judge ends order blocking deportation of family of man charged in Boulder firebomb attack

A federal Judge on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) ended an order blocking the deportation of the family of the man charged in the fatal firebomb attack in Boulder, Colorado, noting government lawyers say the man's relatives are not being rushed out of the country as the White House originally stated. Hayam El Gamal and her five children were detained by immigration agents on June 3, two days after her husband Mohamed Sabry Soliman was accused of throwing two Molotov cocktails at people demonstrating for awareness of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Prosecutors announced on Monday (June 30, 2025) that an 82-year-old woman who was injured in the attack had died. U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garica dismissed the family's lawsuit challenging their detention by immigration authorities. The ruling noted that Ms. El Gamal and her children ages 4 to 18 are not eligible for expedited deportations because they have been in the country for over two years, which he said lawyers for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have acknowledged. Mr. Soliman is an Egyptian national who federal authorities say was living in the U.S. illegally. He is being prosecuted in both State and Federal Court for the attack, which prosecutors say injured a total of 13 people. Investigators say he planned the attack for a year and was driven by a desire 'to kill all Zionist people.' He has pleaded not guilty to federal hate crimes charges but hasn't been asked to enter a plea in the state case, which now includes a murder charge. On the day El Gamal and her children were arrested, the White House said in social media posts that they 'COULD BE DEPORTED AS EARLY AS TONIGHT' and that six one-way tickets had been purchased for them, with their 'final boarding call coming soon." Those statements led a federal judge in Colorado to issue an emergency order temporarily blocking the family's deportation, Mr. Garcia said. The case was later transferred to Texas, where the family is being held in an immigration detention center for families. Mr. Garcia is based in San Antonio. Because the family is in regular deportation proceedings, there is no longer any reason to block their deportation, Mr. Garcia said. Regular proceedings can take months or even years if decisions are appealed. He also turned down the family's request to be released from the detention center in the meantime, saying they can pursue release through the normal bond process in the immigration system. Lawyers for the family had challenged their detention as unconstitutional because they said it was intended to punish them for Mr. Soliman's actions. According to a court filing by Ms. El Gamal's lawyers, one of the immigration agents who arrested them told her, 'You have to pay for the consequences of what you did.' Mr. Garcia said immigration authorities have discretion in deciding who to detain and he did not have authority to review their decision to detain Ms. El Gamal and her children. Lawyers for the government said they are being lawfully held because they are accused of overstaying their visas. One of the family's attorneys, Niels Frenzen, said they hoped to get the family released from the detention center while the deportation proceedings continue. An email seeking comment from the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement was not immediately returned.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store