Democrats have consistently maintained that while some illegal immigrants receive state-level Medicaid benefits, they do not receive federal Medicaid benefits. If that’s true, then why are Democratic attorneys general from blue states suing the federal government to prevent Medicaid data from being used for immigration enforcement? Are they genuinely concerned about potential violations of privacy laws, or more likely, are they attempting to protect those undocumented immigrants who may, in fact, be enrolled in federal Medicaid programs?
Led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, 20 blue states have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Trump administration “violated federal privacy laws when it turned over Medicaid data on millions of enrollees to deportation officials last month.”
Among the plaintiffs in the case are Illinois, New York, Minnesota, and Massachusetts, along with fifteen other states. Defendants include Health and Human Services Department Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Last month, The Associated Press reported that Kennedy’s advisors “ordered the release of a dataset that includes the private health information of people living in California, Illinois, Washington state, and Washington, D.C., to the Department of Homeland Security.”
CNN was careful to report that each of these states permit undocumented aliens “to enroll in Medicaid programs that pay for their expenses using only state taxpayer dollars.”
At any rate, according to CNN:
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.
During a Tuesday press conference Bonta noted that “the 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,” he told reporters.
First of all, seven decades ago, no one could have possibly imagined that a U.S. president would ignore immigration laws and allow 15 million migrants to flow into the country illegally.
Second, although I am not a lawyer, it seems reasonable to assume that information sharing between government agencies is generally permissible and not even all that unusual. Moreover, I would argue that this situation just might represent one of those “narrow circumstances” in which such data sharing does serve the public interest — protecting both public health and the integrity of the Medicaid program — especially if it reveals that undocumented immigrants are receiving federal Medicaid funds.
HotAir’s David Strom states it plainly:
Democrats are playing a verbal shell game, pointing to federal law to say that Medicaid dollars can’t legally go to illegal aliens, so there is no money to be saved by cutting those funds off. At the same time, they are suing to hide the legal status of recipients to prevent them from facing ICE deportations–in other words, they are illegally spending Medicaid dollars for illegals and want to hide them from the feds.The narratives don’t have to be consistent, right?If you were to sit down and analyze what Democrats say to make their arguments on various issues, you would see narrative fails like this all the time. But because the issues are discussed in different contexts, the contradictions don’t stand out to many people.
Viewed from another perspective, if Medicaid benefits for undocumented immigrants are truly only a state issue, then why did this become a matter for the Senate Parliamentarian during consideration of a major federal spending bill? And why was it included in the Senate’s vote-a-rama on Monday, as I discussed here?
As Strom concludes, “The story is always changing to fit the desired result.”
It doesn’t have to make sense. Because they’re Democrats.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY