Dear Friend of Press Freedom,
I’m Lauren Harper, the first Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), and welcome to The Classifieds. Read on to learn about the week’s top secrecy news.
Judge blocks illegal Trump database that already screened over 60 million voters
A federal judge has shut down the Trump administration’s attempts to eviscerate privacy protections by allowing states to check a benefits verification database to confirm voter eligibility. In her 75-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said the effort violated at least three laws and that “the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote.”
The ruling follows the contentious overhaul of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database, which has historically been used for benefits verification. The overhaul linked it with Social Security Administration records to screen more than 60 million voters.
This violates the Privacy Act of 1974, which mandates certain firewalls between your data and the government to prevent state overreach. To achieve this, the law codified a principle called “purpose specification,” meaning that federal agencies must disclose why they are collecting your data, and, if they share that data, it has to be for the originally stated purpose.
In other words: The Department of Homeland Security can’t aggregate Social Security information in an effort to check voter eligibility, and neither can states.
The administration’s core defense for this scheme ties directly into our own legal battles at FPF. In the SAVE case, the government defended its illegal database consolidation by claiming it had a “directive to break down information silos between government agencies.” That is the exact rhetorical justification behind the Trump administration’s executive order on “eliminating information silos,” which FPF is currently suing over.
Specifically, we are seeking the mandatory reports that agencies were required to submit under that order, which are records that could serve as blueprints of how wide this unlawful data-sharing ecosystem actually goes.
It’s easier for Trump to build a ‘flying White House’ than release a document
The Trump administration can refurbish a $400 million luxury jet from Qatar to serve as Air Force One faster than the Justice Department can release a single, 19-page document explaining how the government’s acceptance of the plane is “legally permissible.”
The plane has already been transformed, according to President Donald Trump at a recent unveiling, “into a flying White House at a level of luxury that nobody’s ever seen before.”
But Trump isn’t just enjoying the luxury while in office; he’ll also benefit from it after he leaves. According to reports concerning the DOJ memo we are seeking, the government could only accept the plane if the private Trump presidential library foundation takes possession of it at the end of his term. (Keep in mind, the foundation doesn’t even have to build a library.)
In other words, the plane goes directly to Trump, not the government.
FPF and American Oversight filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for the memo nearly a year ago, and the Justice Department continues to drag its feet, claiming it could take nearly two years to review one document. This egregious delay is a glaring reminder of how broken our FOIA process has become.
It’s also a perfect example of why we need transparency around donations to private presidential library foundations. These entities currently operate in the dark, with zero contribution limits and almost no disclosure requirements. That must change.
What I'm reading
Staggering amounts of fentanyl hit streets as the DEA watched and took no action, records show
This stunning AP investigation, which reveals that the Drug Enforcement Administration knowingly allowed hundreds of thousands of fentanyl pills into New Mexico from 2023 through 2025, was made possible by “the slightest of oversights” in redactions to a whistleblower complaint. The methodology behind the investigation is further detailed in a separate article, which underscores the severe limitations of the FOIA system in revealing what the public actually knows about taxpayer-funded law enforcement activities.
Some senators want more grandstanding at the Supreme Court
This abominable take from the Post’s editorial board coming out against putting cameras in the Supreme Court dubiously claims that “transparency is almost always a short-term political winner in a democracy, but it’s not always in the public’s interest.” It bolsters its argument by claiming that cameras — rather than lack of term limits or corruptive campaign finance laws — are to blame for Congress’ current inefficiencies. The Post should do better.
Transparently yours,
Lauren Harper
Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy
Freedom of the Press Foundation
