President Donald Trump gestures while speaking with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House, Monday, April 6, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson).
The Trump administration is violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by refusing to release records on how federal agencies share and use sensitive personal data via systems built by Palantir, according to a transparency-focused watchdog group.
In an 11-page complaint filed Tuesday, American Oversight accuses myriad administrative agencies of repeatedly violating FOIA laws by failing to release requested information about the federal government”s use of tools developed by and agreements with the controversial, surveillance-focused technology company.
The lawsuit comes amid a reported uptick in the use of Palantir tools in immigration enforcement and expanded data-sharing across agencies, according to the watchdog group.
“Americans deserve to know how their most sensitive personal data is being collected and used by their own government,” American Oversight Executive Director Chioma Chukwu said in a statement. “Systems like this raise serious privacy concerns because they allow the compilation and analysis of vast amounts of information, with little public transparency. That kind of centralized government data power, without information about how the data is being used and whether it is being properly protected, is a red flag.”
The lawsuit links the increase in data-sharing to a March 2025 executive order issued by President Donald Trump.
“Agency Heads shall, to the maximum extent consistent with law, rescind or modify all agency guidance that serves as a barrier to the inter- or intra-agency sharing of unclassified information,” one section of the executive order reads.
The plaintiffs say the data-sharing directives in the order “significantly expanded the government’s business involvement with Palantir.”
The lawsuit raises concerns about corruption, noting the firm was “cofounded by Trump ally Peter Thiel and led by Alex Karp, who donated $1 million” to the pro-Trump Super PAC, MAGA Inc.
“Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, Palantir has secured federal contracts exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars for a variety of services, including artificial intelligence and data analysis, with multiple federal agencies—including Defendants,” the lawsuit reads. “[P]rivacy advocates, lawmakers, and others have voiced concerns about the potential construction of a government surveillance state and abuse of the tools and services created by Palantir that use Americans’ sensitive data.”
American Oversight aims to obtain “[a]ll email communications” between certain agency officials discussing Palantir and between the company’s representatives and those same government officials, according to the lawsuit.
The filing contains a laundry list of dozens of such names and titles affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Internal Revenue Service, and the Social Security Administration. The lawsuit also lists several Palantir-related names and programs.
The plaintiffs go on to request a “complete copy (including all attachments) of all contracts or subcontracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other written agreements between” each named agency and Palantir, all of the “records governing the access of personally identifiable or sensitive information or data” from each named agency, and all “formal or informal final directives” or other “guidance, protocol, or policies created by or otherwise issued to your agency related to data sharing with Palantir.”
The lawsuit also seeks all “informational handouts, summary documents, handwritten or typed notes, or any other records.”
To that end, throughout last summer, the nonprofit submitted the same FOIA request to each of the agencies “among other agencies” and has, to date, received only one “interim response” from the IRS.
That interim response was admittedly lengthy, and included “619 pages of records responsive to part 3 of the request,” according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs said the IRS advised that the agency would deliver the relevant pages “with redactions.” But the interim response has become the lone substantive response, the plaintiffs say.
From the complaint, at length:
IRS’s February 26, 2026 letter further stated that it would “continue processing the rest of [the] request and provide [Plaintiff’s] appeal rights in [IRS’s] final response.” Apart from a duplicate production on April 8, 2026, Plaintiff has received no further communication from IRS regarding this request, nor has IRS produced all records responsive to the request in the form of a final response as of the time of this filing.
As for the other agencies, however, the plaintiffs say they have received a bare-bones acknowledgment that the FOIA requests were filed but – aside from discussions about fee waivers and deadline extensions – have generally “received no further communication.”
Such a paucity of responsive action, the lawsuit alleges, doubly violates the nation’s premier federal transparency law.
The lawsuit is premised on two causes of action — an alleged failure to conduct adequate searches for responsive records and the alleged wrongful withholding of non-exempt responsive records.
The plaintiffs want a court order directing the agencies to conduct “a search or searches reasonably calculated” to uncover the records responsive to their FOIA requests and to produce such records within 20 days of such a would-be court order — or to provide a withholding excuse by a date the judge “deems appropriate.”
The lawsuit also seeks an injunction barring the government from withholding any such responsive records – and attorneys’ fees.
“When the government builds vast systems like this in secret, the public has no way of knowing how that power is being used or who it is being used against,” Chukwu continued. “That’s especially alarming coming from an administration that has repeatedly shared Americans’ data in violation of the law and shown time and again it is willing to use every tool at its disposal to target its perceived enemies for retribution.”
