03-25-2025

Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14243, issued on March 20, 2025, mandates federal agencies to grant designated officials full and prompt access to all unclassified government data, records, and systems. It also requires federal access to data from state programs that receive federal funding, with the stated goal of identifying and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

Money: The order does not appropriate new funds but aims to generate savings by reducing improper payments. In 2022, the federal government made at least $247 billion in improper payments. From 2018 to 2022, estimated annual losses to fraud ranged from $233 billion to $521 billion across the federal government.

Your Impact: For the average American, the most direct effect will be the increased sharing of personal data between federal and state government agencies. This could expedite the verification of eligibility for federal benefits but also raises concerns about data privacy and the potential for misuse of personal information.

Status: Issued and effective as of March 20, 2025. Federal agencies were required to rescind or modify conflicting internal guidance and report on regulatory barriers within 30 days.

What's Actually in the Bill

Executive Order 14243 is designed to break down "information silos" within the federal government and between federal and state governments. It compels a broad sharing of data under the premise of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. The order directs the heads of all federal executive agencies to provide immediate and full access to unclassified records, data, and software systems to officials tasked with pursuing these priorities.

Core Provisions:

  • Full Access for Federal Officials: Agency heads must ensure that designated federal officials have "full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, data, software systems, and information technology systems."
  • Rescinding Barriers: Within 30 days of the order (by April 19, 2025), agencies were required to rescind or modify any internal guidance that hinders inter-agency data sharing.
  • Regulatory Review: Within 30 days, agencies had to report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on regulations that pose barriers to data sharing and recommend changes.
  • State Data Access: The order mandates that the federal government have "unfettered access to comprehensive data from all State programs that receive Federal funding," including data held by third-party databases.
  • Unemployment Data Focus: It specifically grants the Secretary of Labor "unfettered access to all unemployment data and related payment records."
  • Classified Information Review: Agencies must review their classification policies within 45 days to ensure they aren't unnecessarily restricting access to information needed to fight waste and fraud.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

  1. To remove unnecessary barriers preventing federal employees from accessing government data.
  2. To promote inter-agency data sharing to enhance the government's ability to detect overpayments and fraud.
  3. To eliminate bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Government Operations, Healthcare, Labor, Social Security, and any state-administered program receiving federal funds.
Timeline: The order took effect immediately on March 20, 2025, with key deadlines for agency action set for 30 and 45 days after this date.
Scope: The order has a nationwide scope, impacting all federal executive agencies and all 50 states that administer federally funded programs.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Pre-Pandemic Era (2014-2019):

The push for greater government data transparency is not new. The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) was a significant bipartisan effort to standardize federal spending data and make it publicly accessible on the USAspending.gov website. The goal was to allow taxpayers and policymakers to track federal dollars more effectively from congressional appropriation to final disbursement. The law aimed to improve data quality, simplify reporting, and hold agencies accountable.

The COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2022):

The massive infusion of federal funds during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs, exposed significant vulnerabilities to fraud. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that pandemic-related UI fraud likely ranged between $100 billion and $135 billion. This represented the "greatest theft of taxpayer dollars in American history." The Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC) was established by the CARES Act to oversee the more than $5 trillion in relief spending. The PRAC's work highlighted how fraudsters exploited weaknesses in state UI programs, often using stolen identities. These events created a powerful argument for enhanced data sharing to prevent such massive losses in the future.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Massive Pandemic Fraud: The unprecedented level of fraud during the pandemic provided a strong impetus for action. With estimates of improper payments reaching as high as $191 billion, there is significant political pressure to prevent a recurrence.
  • Focus on Government Efficiency: The current administration has prioritized cutting government waste. An entity called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was created to find savings across the federal government. This executive order is a primary tool for achieving that goal by targeting systemic inefficiencies and vulnerabilities.
  • Frustration with Bureaucracy: There is a long-held view among some policymakers that government agencies are overly protective of their data, creating "information silos" that impede efficiency and collaboration. This order directly confronts that culture by mandating access.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects any American who receives federal benefits or participates in state-run programs funded by the federal government, as well as every taxpayer.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Faster Service: For individuals applying for federal benefits (like Social Security, Medicaid, or food assistance), streamlined data sharing could mean faster eligibility verification and quicker access to services.
  • Reduced Fraud: Successfully preventing billions in fraudulent payments could, in theory, preserve the solvency of critical entitlement programs and reduce pressure for future tax increases or benefit cuts.
  • Better Government Services: Proponents argue that breaking down data silos will lead to more efficient and effective government operations, improving the delivery of services across the board.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (First 1-2 years):

  • Privacy Concerns: The consolidation of vast amounts of personal data from various federal and state agencies creates a significant target for cyberattacks and raises concerns about how this information will be used and secured.
  • Data Errors: Increased data matching could lead to individuals being incorrectly flagged for fraud or denied benefits due to errors in government databases. Correcting these errors can be a difficult and time-consuming process.

Long-term:

  • Erosion of Privacy Norms: The order could set a new precedent for government access to personal data, potentially weakening legal and cultural barriers that have traditionally limited data sharing between agencies and between federal and state governments.
  • Potential for Misuse: Critics worry that a centralized trove of citizen data could be used for purposes beyond fraud detection, such as surveillance or enforcement of other regulations, without the consent of the individuals who provided the data.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Recipients of federal benefits (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, housing assistance), federal employees, and state government agencies.
Secondary Groups: Taxpayers, government contractors, and privacy advocacy organizations.
Regional Impact: The order will have a significant impact on all states, as they will be required to share extensive data from federally funded programs with the federal government.

Bottom Line: This executive order trades some measure of data privacy for the promise of a more efficient government and less fraud; your personal information held by state and federal agencies will now be more easily shared within the government.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Cutting Waste, Restoring Fiscal Sanity"

Core Stance: Generally support the executive order as a necessary step to eliminate rampant waste and fraud and increase government accountability.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Argue that pandemic-era fraud demonstrated a catastrophic failure of government oversight that must be corrected.
  • ✓ Believe that eliminating information silos is a common-sense way to make government more efficient and save taxpayers billions of dollars.
  • ✓ Support holding agencies accountable for mismanaging taxpayer resources and view data sharing as a key tool for enforcement.

Legislative Strategy: To champion the executive order as a fulfillment of campaign promises to shrink government and protect taxpayer dollars. They are likely to highlight any savings identified by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as proof of the order's success.

Democratic Position: "A Threat to Privacy and Government Integrity"

Core Stance: Generally oppose the executive order, raising significant concerns about data privacy, civil liberties, and the potential for abuse of power.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Support efforts to fight fraud but believe this order goes too far, creating unacceptable risks to personal privacy.
  • ⚠️ Express major concerns about the lack of safeguards, transparency, and clear legal authority for the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access sensitive citizen data.
  • ✗ Argue that the order could be used to intimidate or target vulnerable populations and that it undermines the traditional separation of data between federal and state authorities.

Legislative Strategy: To conduct oversight of the order's implementation, introduce legislation to enhance data privacy protections, and publicly challenge the legality and propriety of the broad data access granted to potentially unvetted individuals.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The executive order is based on the President's authority to manage the executive branch. The federal government's authority to compel data sharing from states often relies on the Commerce Clause and the Spending Power, where Congress can place conditions on the funds it provides to states.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (Spending Power): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause): "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Constitutional Implications:

[Federalism]: The order's directive for "unfettered access" to state-held data raises significant federalism questions. The anti-commandeering doctrine generally prevents the federal government from forcing states to enact or administer federal programs. While the federal government can attach conditions to funding, a mandate for unconditional access to all data, including that held by third parties, could be seen as coercive and an overstep of federal authority.

[Precedent]: In Reno v. Condon (2000), the Supreme Court upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which restricted states' ability to sell personal data from DMV records, viewing the data itself as an article of interstate commerce that Congress could regulate. This precedent suggests Congress has some power to regulate state-held databases. However, this executive order is not a law passed by Congress and compels sharing rather than restricting it, creating a different legal dynamic.

[Separation of Powers]: Critics argue the order, particularly through the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), attempts to usurp Congress's power of the purse by effectively controlling federal spending without legislative approval.

Potential Legal Challenges:

The order is highly likely to face, and is already facing, legal challenges.

  • States: States may sue, arguing the federal government is unconstitutionally commandeering state resources and violating state privacy laws.
  • Civil Liberties Groups: Organizations like the ACLU may challenge the order on Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process) grounds, arguing it violates individuals' right to privacy.
  • Individuals: Individuals whose data is shared or used improperly could file lawsuits alleging violations of privacy and other harms.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support Executive Order 14243 and efforts to cut government fraud."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact your representatives and the White House, expressing support for using data analytics to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly.
  • Join an Organization: Look for taxpayer advocacy groups that focus on fiscal responsibility and reducing government waste.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to conduct oversight on Executive Order 14243 and protect my data privacy."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper outlining your concerns about government data collection and the potential for privacy violations.
  • Join an Organization: Support civil liberties and privacy-focused organizations that are monitoring the implementation of this order and challenging it in court.