Summary#
The Disaster Data Protection Act is a standalone bill; it does not amend another Act. Its stated goal is to restrict the Department of Homeland Security from obtaining certain personal information collected after natural disasters, but the operative rule names the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), not the Secretary. The bill has been introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; it is not law.
- It would bar use of federal funds by the ICE Director to obtain personally identifiable information collected by a non-governmental entity in response to a natural disaster.
- It says a non-governmental entity may provide that information if the ICE Director obtains a judicial warrant.
- The information covered includes identifiers such as names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and alien registration numbers, as well as certain personal records—such as medical, financial, education, criminal, or employment history—when linked to specified identifiers.
- The bill does not expressly ban the use of non-federal funds to obtain the information, or clearly prohibit an organization from sharing it without a warrant.
What it means for you#
- People whose information is collected after a disaster: The bill would limit one means ICE could use to obtain that information: federal funds. It does not create a general privacy right, require organizations to collect less information, or set rules for storing or deleting it.
- Non-governmental organizations: They may provide covered information to the ICE Director if the Director obtains a judicial warrant. The bill does not clearly say whether they may provide it without a warrant.
- ICE: The Director could not use federal funds to obtain the covered information, subject to the warrant language. The bill does not set out a process for requesting information or obtaining a warrant.
- General public: The bill does not directly change disaster aid, immigration eligibility, or other benefits.
Money#
The bill provides no cost estimate or appropriation.
- It restricts how federal funds may be used but does not state the amount of spending affected.
- It does not set staffing levels or create a funded program.
What is unclear#
- The bill’s title and long title refer to the Homeland Security Secretary, while its operative text names the ICE Director.
- The warrant provision does not clearly state whether it is an exception to the federal-funding ban, or whether it only permits an organization to provide information.
- The bill does not clearly prohibit obtaining the information with non-federal funds or sharing it without a warrant.
- It does not explain how the rule would interact with current law. No publicly available information.
- It does not define what it means for information to be collected “in response to” a natural disaster, or explain how covered information would be identified and handled.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to protect personal information gathered by organizations helping people after disasters.
- Limiting federally funded ICE access could reduce the risk that people’s disaster-related information is used for purposes beyond the response. This is a possible effect, not a guaranteed result.
- The warrant language could allow access when a court has approved it.
Case against#
- The bill’s limits are unclear: it restricts federal funding, but does not plainly bar ICE from obtaining the information through other funding or methods.
- The mismatch between the stated target, the Secretary, and the operative target, the ICE Director, could leave uncertainty about who is covered.
- The bill does not explain how it would affect organizations’ choices about sharing information or how it fits with existing law.