Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos

Enumerated powers · raises concerns · severity: significant

The President has authority under Article II, Section 1 and Section 3 to supervise execution of the laws and direct executive agencies to coordinate. However, Section 3(c) asserts immediate unfettered federal access to comprehensive State program data, Section 3(e) purports to supersede prior rules subject to direct Presidential rulemaking, and Section 3(b) orders regulatory rollback, without citing statutory authority such as the Privacy Act, tax-return confidentiality, health and education privacy statutes, or State sovereign authority. An executive order cannot override Acts of Congress under Article I, Section 8 and Article VI, Clause 2, nor commandeer State records. The order exceeds executive implementation and claims legislative scope.

Bill of Rights · raises concerns · severity: significant

Section 3(a)-(d) orders full, prompt, and unfettered intra- and inter-agency access to all unclassified records, data, software systems, plus comprehensive data from State programs and unemployment payment records. While limited to unclassified material and qualified by to the maximum extent consistent with law, the order directs systematic consolidation of personal records held across agencies and States without individualized suspicion, notice, or judicial authorization. This creates significant Fourth Amendment tension regarding unreasonable searches through bulk data aggregation, and Ninth Amendment tension regarding retained privacy interests. The saving clause reduces but does not eliminate the risk because agency guidance and system-of-records protections are ordered rescinded or modified.

Individual liberty · raises concerns · severity: significant

Individuals retain control over their personal information, labor and benefit records, and private communications with State agencies. The order treats all unclassified agency-held personal data as presumptively shareable across the entire federal government and with Presidential designees for broad Administration priorities, shifting the burden to the individual to bear aggregation and re-use. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing fraud under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, but unfettered, purpose-open consolidation without particularized justification or use limitation is disproportionate and not narrowly justified.

Decentralization · raises concerns · severity: significant

Fraud detection in federally funded programs can be handled in part at the State level through audits, program-integrity offices, and cooperative agreements, and at the federal level only under defined statutory sharing authorities. Section 3(c) demands unfettered federal access to comprehensive data from all State programs receiving federal funds, including third-party databases, which consolidates decision-making upward beyond the minimum necessary and pressures States through funding leverage. This fails the state-can-handle and no-upward-consolidation questions, implicating the Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering and federalism principle.

Due process and takings · raises concerns · severity: significant

The order provides no new procedural safeguards for individuals whose records will be consolidated for waste, fraud, and abuse findings: no notice, no opportunity to contest accuracy, no standard for adverse use, and no judicial process before designation. Bulk matching of unemployment, payment, and State program data risks erroneous deprivation of benefits, employment, or reputation through arbitrary or inaccurate matching, implicating Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process. No direct appropriation of property requiring just compensation is ordered, so the Takings Clause is not directly violated.