- The DHS is seeking access to sensitive records within the Federal Parent Locator Service database.
- The request targets employment and family data restricted by federal law to child support enforcement.
- Privacy experts warn that such access could compromise millions of Americans, including citizens and mixed-status families.
(UNITED STATES) — The Department of Homeland Security is seeking access to the Federal Parent Locator Service, a closely restricted Department of Health and Human Services database that contains employment, wage, family, and child support records for millions of Americans, including U.S. citizens.
Three sources familiar with the discussions described the request on March 11, 2026, and said it could give immigration authorities visibility into sensitive personal records that the system was not created to support.
Neither DHS nor HHS has commented publicly as of March 11, 2026, leaving unanswered how broad any access would be, what safeguards might apply, and whether any approvals have been granted.
FPLS operates through HHS to help locate parents and enforce child support obligations as part of child support enforcement, and federal law restricts access to authorized persons and authorized purposes.
Official HHS materials describe FPLS as a tool for locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and custodial parties, and the statutory limits around who can use it form the center of the dispute.
DHS’s request has drawn attention because it tests the privacy boundaries around one of the federal government’s most restricted family-data systems and raises questions about cross-agency data sharing.
People familiar with the discussions said the request targets two major FPLS components: the National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case Registry.
The National Directory of New Hires, known as NDNH, tracks employment and wage data for all U.S. workers regardless of child support involvement, and data for non-relevant individuals is eventually purged.
The Federal Case Registry includes details on child support cases such as children’s names, sexes, birthdates, Social Security numbers, family relationships, and domestic violence indicators.
Vicki Turetsky, HHS child support enforcement commissioner from 2009-2016, said the NDNH exposes data on “all American workers,” and that immigration status could be inferred from the presence or absence of a Social Security number.
Immigration status itself is not directly included in the child support data collection, but records can still reveal where people work, how they are paid, and how they connect to family-support systems.
People familiar with the discussions said DHS’s push alarms privacy officials because wage and employer reporting can surface addresses, employers, and other identifiers that were collected for child support enforcement and related functions.
Those exposure paths can extend into mixed-status families, where U.S. citizens, lawful residents, and undocumented relatives may share households, financial ties, or family court records that appear in support-related systems.
Undocumented parents or family members can appear in the records because child support is not a taxpayer-funded public benefit, and the system’s coverage can reach far beyond immigration files.
Bethanne Barnes of HHS’s Administration for Children and Families described FPLS as “the most powerful people-finder system that the U.S. government has,” covering names, addresses, Social Security numbers, employers, salaries, and unemployment data for nearly all employed individuals.
Barnes said the system excludes most gig, cash, or self-employed workers, but its breadth still makes it a uniquely sensitive repository because it links work information and family relationships.
Federal law restricts FPLS access to authorized users and authorized purposes that include child support collection, custody, visitation, pursuit of federal student loan debt, and means-tested program eligibility checks.
People familiar with the discussions said DHS is not listed as an authorized user, and immigration enforcement is not a permitted use under the statutes that govern FPLS, prompting concerns from current and former HHS officials that approval would violate the law.
The HHS general counsel’s office, led by a Trump administration political appointee, is reviewing the request despite opposition from child support staff, and Congress has allowed limited exceptions for other agencies but none for DHS immigration purposes.
Discussions around the request have also focused on how an interagency agreement or a contested interpretation of “authorized purposes” could reshape access, even as the system was built to be purpose-limited and tightly controlled.
People familiar with the talks said DHS sought “unfettered” or broad operational access, language that heightened concern about whether sensitive family and employment data could be used beyond the functions Congress specified.
State-level child support officials and workers have warned about practical fallout if families or employers believe support data could feed immigration enforcement, including reduced cooperation with child support systems.
Kate Cooper Richardson, Oregon’s former program lead, warned that employer reporting could decline due to fears of DHS retaliation, harming the one in five U.S. children relying on child support.
The dispute also reaches beyond noncitizens because FPLS contains information on millions of people connected to child support and employment reporting, meaning U.S. citizens and lawful residents can appear in the same datasets.
Recent fights over cross-agency data have added scrutiny to any new request involving immigration enforcement and sensitive federal records, including a February 2026 incident involving improper disclosure of immigrant tax information to DHS.
A separate January 2025 episode involved the administration seeking access to a database involving unaccompanied immigrant minors, a development that also drew attention to how immigration authorities seek information held outside immigration agencies.
With the HHS legal review underway and DHS’s public posture limited, the next decision points center on whether HHS treats DHS as an authorized user, what limits might apply to any data queries, and what audit controls or data-minimization steps could be required if access expands.
Congress, inspectors general, courts, and transparency fights could shape the outcome if the access request moves forward, as the handling of FPLS could set wider privacy norms for how federal data ecosystems interact with immigration enforcement.
