Privacy vs. Border Security? The Medicaid Data Lawsuit and the Battle for American Sovereignty
On July 1, 2025, twenty states—Maryland among them—filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) unlawfully shared Medicaid data with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They allege this data transfer violates privacy laws and could lead to deportations of undocumented immigrants receiving state-funded healthcare.
Let’s unpack what’s really going on here—and why this is more than just a blue-state temper tantrum. This case pits privacy protections against the legitimate need to secure our borders and ensure taxpayer dollars are not funding unlawful residency. It also exposes the growing hypocrisy of progressive states like Maryland that treat enforcement of immigration law as some form of civil rights violation—while their own residents struggle to access services that are being stretched thin.
What the Left Claims: Privacy and Fear
California Attorney General Rob Bonta leads this blue coalition, accusing the Trump administration of violating HIPAA, the Privacy Act, and other laws by transferring personal Medicaid data to DHS. Critics argue the move will “chill” noncitizens and even mixed-status families from seeking medical care—alleging it creates a “surveillance database” for mass deportations.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown echoed these fears, claiming the lawsuit is about protecting “vulnerable” residents and preserving the integrity of the state’s Medicaid system. But let’s be honest—Maryland wasn’t even one of the states whose data was shared. This is a political stunt disguised as a privacy crusade.
What the Right Understands: Sovereignty and Accountability
Let’s get to the heart of it: HHS shared this data to ensure that taxpayer-funded healthcare—Medicaid—is not being used by those who are not lawfully entitled to it. ICE and DHS have a duty to identify fraud, waste, and abuse, especially as federal spending reaches record highs.
This isn't about punishing people; it's about enforcing immigration laws already on the books. If states like Maryland want to create their own sanctuary Medicaid programs, fine—but don’t cry foul when the federal government wants transparency on where its money is going.
As HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon put it, the transfer was part of an oversight initiative under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The goal? Prevent misuse of Medicaid by ensuring benefits go to law-abiding Americans.
The Real Issue: Federalism or Political Theater?
Progressive states are exploiting the courts to block any Trump-era policy they find politically inconvenient—even if it’s perfectly legal. This isn’t new. Remember the travel ban? Sanctuary cities? Now it’s Medicaid.
Here’s the irony: these same states that demand more federal funding for healthcare are now suing the federal government for asking where that money is going. It’s a classic case of wanting your cake and eating it too.
And let’s be blunt—this data is already protected. It wasn’t dumped online or handed to private corporations. It went from one federal agency to another, within the same government, with a clear legal interest in preventing fraud.
What This Means for Maryland
Maryland’s participation in this lawsuit is more about political optics than policy. AG Anthony Brown has prioritized partisan resistance over fiscal responsibility. Instead of fighting to ensure resources are allocated to lawful residents in need, Maryland is fighting to protect the ability of noncitizens—including those unlawfully present—to access those resources unchecked.
Meanwhile, law-abiding Marylanders face rising healthcare costs, limited provider availability, and administrative roadblocks. Shouldn’t our state leaders be focused on fixing those problems, not joining lawsuits that block oversight?
The Bottom Line:
This lawsuit isn't about privacy—it's about politics.
It’s not about protecting the vulnerable—it’s about protecting the status quo in sanctuary states.
It’s not about data—it’s about who gets to define who is entitled to the benefits of American citizenship.
Yes, data privacy matters. But so does the rule of law. And when states start treating every immigration-related enforcement effort as a civil rights violation, we’re no longer debating policy—we’re denying the very concept of national sovereignty.
The Trump administration’s move may be controversial, but it’s far from unprecedented—and certainly not illegal on its face. What we’re seeing is a political rebellion dressed in legal robes.
And if Maryland wants to join that rebellion, it better be ready to explain why it's siding with illegal entrants over its own struggling citizens.