Trump order on information sharing appears to have implications for DOGE and beyond

A new executive order from President Donald Trump aims to expand information-sharing across federal agencies as well as between federal and state governments, but civil libertarians and other experts are warning that the main purpose is to help normalize how the Department of Government Efficiency is handling government data.

The order, issued Thursday, directs all federal agency heads to modify or rescind any regulations preventing the sharing of unclassified data and records between federal agencies. 

Agency heads also must ensure that the U.S. government has “unfettered access” to comprehensive data from all state programs that receive federal funding. The order extends to all such data even when stored in third-party databases.

The stated goal is “eliminating bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency while enhancing the Government’s ability to detect overpayments and fraud” — the supposed core of DOGE’s mission. The order does not mention DOGE by name.

Civil libertarians and other experts, however, call the new EO an alarming development, and say it is meant to give cover to DOGE, which has been the subject of numerous lawsuits as its workers continue to root through government records and disrupt federal agencies. Trump also has previously sought to consolidate data for reasons that would infringe on civil liberties, the experts say.

While the new EO asserts that the removal of data “silos” is designed to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse, disturbing mission creep is very possible, said Elizabeth Laird, director of equity and civic technology at the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology.

There are no assurances that the data won’t be used for “targeting people who the administration has separately said are a priority for them,” Laird said. “That can include immigrants, it can include people who are transgender, it can include people that speak up” against the administration. 

During his first presidency, Trump issued an EO attempting to compel state government agencies to share administrative data with the federal government for purposes of immigration enforcement. At least four states shared immigration data, Laird said.

“You’re laying the foundation for this data to be weaponized in ways never seen before in the country.”

Allowing DOGE to co-mingle agency data also could lead to abuses against the general population, said Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at the ACLU.

Individuals going through airport security could routinely be checked against a centralized database so that the Transportation Security Administration, for example, could discover they unknowingly haven’t paid back taxes and delay their travel, he said. 

Potentially allowing the federal government to build vast dossiers on individuals that can be cross-checked anytime someone interacts with any arm of any state or federal agency creates an alarming new surveillance capacity, Venzke said.

“We have legal procedures for establishing database linkages, and once again, what we see here is the Trump administration jumping around legal requirements in order to gain some nebulous advantage for combating fraud, waste and abuse with, of course, almost no definition around what they mean by that,” Venzke said.

Court filings in DOGE cases have revealed examples of irregular data sharing. On March 14, a filing said a former worker in the office, Marko Elez, broke Treasury Department rules when he sent an unencrypted database containing personally identifiable information outside of the agency.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Expanding what’s allowed

The Trump EO creating DOGE did not expressly direct agencies to “rescind or modify all agency guidance that serves as a barrier to the inter- or intraagency sharing of unclassified information” as this one does, said Nandan Joshi, whose organization, Public Citizen Litigation, has filed data sharing lawsuits against DOGE.

Joshi believes the administration is trying to make it harder for courts to curtail DOGE’s activities, he said.

“I suspect that the administration is concerned that existing agency rules and procedures designed to protect privacy, and the potential for court enforcement of those rules and procedures, will interfere with the administration’s goal of creating a centralized database of personal information,” he said.

“Facebook and Google have more guardrails to protect people’s information than you’ll find in the President’s data sharing directives — people can choose not to use social media, but they can’t avoid the government.”

While the federal Privacy Act contains multiple data sharing provisions that advocates and many former federal employees say DOGE is violating, a central one prohibits changes to rules for data sharing outside of agencies, in most cases, unless system of records notices (SORN) are used. 

The new order directs agency heads to review SORNs and recommend to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget whether they should be modified or eliminated within 30 days.

SORNs are published for 30 days before data can be accessed or shared in new ways in order to allow public comment. Many of the lawsuits against DOGE focusing on data sharing include charges that SORN rules are being routinely violated.

The EO also would impose a massive cultural change on federal agencies, experts said.

“There's a broader issue of just trying to remove barriers to get agencies’ staff to fall in line by removing some of the beliefs that they've historically operated under,” Laird said.

The EO also directs the Labor Department officials to give DOGE broad access to all unemployment data and related payment records, another indicator of the administration’s intentions for a sweeping database, experts said.

It orders agency heads to also review classified information policies to “determine whether they result in the classification of materials beyond what is necessary to protect critical national security interests.” They must submit a report to OMB recommending whether to modify or get rid of such policies, the EO says.

The directive comes a day after a federal judge issued a restraining order directing the Department of Government Efficiency to stop collecting personal data stored at the Social Security Administration (SSA), delete data it has already collected and uninstall related software implemented since the beginning of the second Trump administration.

Calling DOGE efforts at SSA a “fishing expedition,” the judge said the team’s harvesting of millions of Americans Social Security numbers, banking records and medical, mental health and hospitalization records in search of waste is inappropriate and “tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”

On Friday, acting SSA Commissioner Leland Dudek said he is working with the Justice Department and agency lawyers to determine if he can close SSA in response to the ruling.