NPR’s latest report is truly a blockbuster.  The SAVE system run by DHS has always been a system keeping track of the immigration status of individuals at some point in the immigration system (including after people naturalize).  As the National Conference of State Legislatures said as recently as May 12, “USCIS is clear that SAVE does not provide information on citizens born in the US [or on individuals outside of the immigration system].”  But DHS and Social Security have now apparently expanded SAVE to effectively serve as a database of natural-born US citizens as well – without the notice to the public or the notice to Congress required by the Privacy Act of 1974.

We’ve never had a federal government database for identifying all of the citizens in the country.  (And even if DHS and SSA have added natural-born citizens, we still don’t: not ever citizen is in the Social Security database.)  Part of that is based on concerns about logistics and data quality and data security.  Part of that is based on vigorous public resistance.  Part of that is based on the law: because of the other two categories of issues, Congress has never authorized the executive to create one, and has put legal limits in place to prevent the government just up and creating one without telling us.

And, it appears, the Trump Administration has just been building one on its own, with zero transparency.  According to the article, the primary public indication appears to be a June 13 fact sheet posted deep in the bread crumbs on the USCIS SAVE website, that says “SAVE can verify U.S.-born citizens for voter verification agencies.”  Zero details there.  DHS has also apparently briefed Cleta Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network on the system.  For the rest of us, bupkis.  I don’t understand how any of that is in line with federal statute, which requires advance notice to Congressional committees and to the public of any significant change in the scope or use of federal databases on individuals, with criminal penalties for noncompliance.

To be clear, a reliable database could be really useful for some purposes, IF DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY.  (Just as one example, it would facilitate cutting many of the bureaucratic hurdles to accessing federal benefits reserved for citizens.  Including removing any claimed need for specific documentation of citizenship that citizens may not have readily available.)  But the fact that there might be some beneficial use cases doesn’t resolve any of the questions about logistics and data quality and data security and public support and legal authorization.  NPR reports that DOGE was involved in this Administration’s decision to just plow ahead and given DOGE’s other extremely well-publicized challenges with both accuracy and security, those questions loom quite a bit larger in my mind.