ICE shared Medicaid data it wasn't supposed to have with Palantir



ICE agents stand guard outside a immigrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey in May 2026. Medicaid officials improperly shared data about millions of people with ICE, who then shared that data with the data analytics firm Palantir, according to new court filings.

ICE agents stand guard outside a immigrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey in May 2026. Medicaid officials improperly shared data about millions of people with ICE, who then shared that data with the data analytics firm Palantir, according to new court filings.
ICE agents stand guard outside a immigrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey in May 2026. Medicaid officials improperly shared data about millions of people with ICE, who then shared that data with the data analytics firm Palantir, according to new court filings.
Adam Gray/Getty Images

After Medicaid officials improperly shared data about millions of people in January with immigration officials, ICE then shared that data with the data analytics firm Palantir, according to new court filings. Palantir operates an app called ELITE that is used by ICE agents to show the addresses of noncitizens who may be subject to deportation.

That revelation was made public in a motion filed Thursday by more than 20 Democratic attorneys general who sued the Trump administration last year over its data-sharing agreement between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and ICE.

Palantir said in a statement to NPR that the dataset in question had been purged.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in California ruled in December that health officials could share with ICE certain details from Medicaid data about immigrants without lawful status from the states that had sued, such as home addresses, dates of birth and immigration status.

Chhabria, who was appointed by former President Obama, then temporarily paused data sharing between CMS and ICE for immigration enforcement purposes in late May after federal officials admitted CMS had shared data with ICE in January that went beyond what the court order allowed. One dataset of refugees in Minnesota included U.S. citizens, and another that was transferred on Jan. 7 contained data of millions of people, including those in the country legally.

ICE was supposed to delete the improperly shared data. Chhabria set a hearing for August to further clarify his order and clear up ambiguity regarding which categories of noncitizens' data could be lawfully shared with ICE.

But in recent days, federal officials have admitted to additional instances of improper data sharing.

In a court filing last week, the Justice Department said that CMS again inadvertently reshared with ICE the dataset with millions of names that CMS had first improperly shared with ICE in January. The government said the error occurred during an effort to share data from states not involved in the lawsuit.

Alberto Briseno, a section chief for ICE's Homeland Security Investigations, wrote in a declaration that ICE personnel deleted the file after it was discovered and it was not used for law enforcement purposes.

Then Briseno revealed that a day later, the agency had done a broader search and discovered that half a dozen users still had a copy of the Jan. 7 dataset.

In that most recent declaration, Briseno said he was not aware of any additional copies of the dataset, but said the recent searches have "highlighted technological difficulties of making a representation that every possible variation of the file has been searched for and located." He added, "ICE will continue to make good faith efforts to delete any copies that may be found in the future."

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is asking the judge to expand his order to allow ICE to receive data on a broader category of noncitizens – to potentially include all immigrants who are not legal permanent residents, citizens or have another form of permanent status.

"ICE's inability to identify Medicaid records in its possession undercuts any claim that the agency should be entitled to more access to that data," the Democratic attorneys generals wrote in their motion filed late Thursday.

Their motion continued, "Each successive revelation of a violation of the Order makes it more difficult for Plaintiff States to have confidence in Defendants' ability to maintain and secure this data in compliance with the Order, and more difficult for Plaintiff States to communicate assurances to Medicaid providers, enrollees (and their counsel), and the public at large about the privacy and confidentiality of their healthcare data."

Palantir provided the following statement to NPR: "Our customers control their own data and manage access to that data. When Palantir employees are granted access to a customer's dataset, it is solely to help integrate and analyze that data — which is what our software does — not to store it or use it for our own purposes. Palantir can confirm that the dataset in question was purged pursuant to government instruction."

DHS didn't immediately return a request for comment about its transfer of data to Palantir.

According to a declaration filed by California deputy attorney general Anna Rich, when plaintiffs asked what federal officials did to ensure Palantir and other contractors had purged the data, defendants responded that the data had been shared over a Microsoft Teams chat and the shared data was deleted from the chat. Rich shared in her declaration a document turned over in discovery from federal officials that shows a redacted transcript of what appears to be ICE personnel asking Palantir to delete the file.

In an April 30 hearing, Chhabria had warned the federal government would not be able to continue using Medicaid data for deportation efforts if it continued improperly sharing the data of citizens and legal immigrants.

"If the federal government cannot be sufficiently careful then it can't use the information, ok?" Chhabria had said.

Copyright 2026, NPR



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Misinformation about sunscreen makes up a small portion of TikTok videos about the subject, but those posts are disproportionately popular and widely shared, a new study finds.

Wellness topics are commonly affected by misinformation spread online. That includes content related to sunscreen — a crucial tool in preventing skin cancer. A new peer-reviewed study conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta found that misinformation on TikTok receives higher audience engagement compared to pro-sunscreen content. 

The study looked at 971 of the most-viewed TikTok videos about sunscreen and found that the most-viewed videos had anti-sunscreen messaging. These videos only made up a small fraction of content found on TikTok (6%), compared to pro-sunscreen videos (86.8%). And only 1.5% of the posts the researchers reviewed claimed sunscreen caused harm.

Although there are fewer anti-sunscreen videos, these attract the most attention because the messaging is more provocative, the researchers said. Public health officials have been concerned about the anti-sunscreen movement that claims, falsely, that sunscreen is harmful or prevents the health benefits of sun exposure. Among the myths these messages spread include that sunscreen causes cancer, it blocks the absorption of Vitamin D and that it’s toxic to humans. The popularity of this content on TikTok could influence viewers, particularly younger ones, to avoid it altogether. 

It’s not surprising that many Americans turn to social media for health advice. A Pew Research Center survey released in April found 36% of Americans reported getting health information at least sometimes from social media. (And 22% said they got health information from AI chatbots.) Wellness influencers know how to make particularly engaging content, which makes it easier for others to believe the message they’re sharing — even if it’s false or misleading. 

Experts attribute the willingness of Americans to believe sunscreen misinformation to a wide range of factors.

“I think sunscreen skepticism grew out of a few overlapping movements: clean beauty, distrust of institutions, fear of synthetic ingredients and a general wellness culture that tends to frame ‘natural’ as automatically safer,” Dr. Melanie Palm, a board-certified dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon at Art of Skin MD, tells CNET. Sensationalized messages spread easily on social media because they feed on real human fears. 

Although there’s relatively more pro-sunscreen TikTok content, experts believe the messaging for this has been short-sighted as well. The study found that the majority of sunscreen content promoted on TikTok was mainly centered around its beauty benefits, versus only 6% mentioning cancer risk reduction.

“For many people, especially younger people, photoaging feels more relevant than cancer prevention,” Palm says. Not that sun protection lacks beauty benefits. ”I don’t think it’s wrong to talk about the beauty benefits of sunscreen because sunscreen does help prevent brown spots, uneven tone, collagen breakdown, and premature aging,” Palm says. 

Since sunscreen content has leaned more towards the beauty angle, its skin cancer prevention messaging has been downplayed. “Dermatologists and brands need to say it [sunscreen can prevent skin cancer] more clearly, and we need to say it in plain language,” Palm says. The problem is that often the facts on social media sound like a lecture. Palm believes experts can work on explaining themselves better without diluting the science and being less dismissive if a patient is worried about sunscreen use.

“We can say, ‘I understand why that sounds concerning — here is what the evidence actually shows, and here are options if you prefer mineral sunscreen, tinted sunscreen, fragrance-free formulas or newer filters,’” Palm suggests. 

Palm recommends experts active on social media focus on shorter videos, simpler analogies and real-life examples of sun damage. That’s just one piece of the equation. Sunscreen manufacturers marketing their products on social media often use fear-based language. Palm recommends that they focus on educating the public instead. This includes explaining common terms such as “broad-spectrum” or why it’s important to reapply sunscreen. “Show sunscreens on different skin tones, because if a product leaves a white cast or pills under makeup, people are not going to wear it daily,” Palm says. 

With research showing that more people are receiving their news from social media, it’s prime time for experts to appear as relatable as possible when sharing content on social platforms. Sunscreen brands can aim to educate younger people on the importance of skin protection and still speak about its beauty benefits. Even if you’re sharing the truth on social media, the way you get that message across is just as important if you want to reach a greater audience. 





Source link