VERIFY Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
The VERIFY Act aims to significantly enhance the accuracy, speed, and data integration of the SAVE program while implementing privacy and oversight safeguards.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the modernization of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, managed by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). It requires upgrades to query processing, automated data reconciliation, expanded API access, and a user feedback mechanism. The bill also sets a 24-hour target for reflecting immigration status changes, enhances data sharing with other federal and state agencies, and establishes safeguards for data scope and the use of automated tools, including human review for adverse eligibility determinations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that modernizing the SAVE program is crucial for ensuring that public benefits are distributed accurately and efficiently, preventing fraud and errors caused by outdated information. They contend that improved data timeliness and interoperability will reduce administrative burdens on agencies and ensure individuals' eligibility is determined based on the most current immigration status, thereby protecting both taxpayers and eligible recipients.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the potential for increased data sharing, even with safeguards, to infringe on individual privacy. They may also point to the significant technical and financial challenges of implementing such a comprehensive modernization, particularly the ambitious 24-hour update requirement, which could lead to unforeseen costs or system vulnerabilities if not executed flawlessly. Some may also argue that while safeguards are present, any expansion of data integration carries inherent risks of overreach or misuse.
The bill is concise and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for detailed consideration of its provisions.
Section 2(a)
SAVE Program Modernization Requirements
This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, through USCIS, to modernize the SAVE program. This includes upgrading the technical infrastructure to speed up response times, automating the process of reconciling data with original source systems, providing more agencies with API access for queries, and creating a system for agencies to report suspected data errors. The goal is to make the verification process faster and more accurate.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these upgrades are essential to bring the SAVE program into the 21st century, ensuring it can handle current demands and provide reliable information quickly, which is critical for effective governance and preventing fraud.
Critics contend
Critics might suggest that the cost and complexity of such extensive technological upgrades could be substantial, potentially diverting resources from other critical USCIS functions or leading to implementation delays and cost overruns.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need for significant investment in technology and infrastructure against the long-term benefits of increased efficiency and accuracy in benefit eligibility verification.
Section 2(b)
Timeliness of Immigration Status Updates
This provision mandates that any changes to an individual's immigration status, such as grants, extensions, expirations, revocations, or terminations of lawful status, must be reflected in the SAVE program within 24 hours of being recorded in the originating system. This ensures that the SAVE program always has the most current information available for eligibility checks.
Section 2(c)
Enhanced Interoperability and Data Sharing
This section requires the Secretary to integrate the SAVE program with other relevant Department of Homeland Security systems, including arrival and departure information. It also mandates establishing or updating data-sharing agreements (Memoranda of Understanding) with other federal agencies like the Social Security Administration, adhering to existing privacy laws. Additionally, it encourages voluntary data-sharing agreements with State vital records agencies for birth and death information, where legally permitted, to further improve verification accuracy.
Section 2(e) and (f)
Data Scope Limitations and Automated Tool Safeguards
This section explicitly limits the information used or displayed by the SAVE program to only what is necessary for eligibility verification. It prohibits expanding SAVE to include non-immigration criminal history databases or using it for general law enforcement or surveillance. Furthermore, it allows the use of automated tools for data reconciliation and error reduction, but with strict conditions: no adverse eligibility determination can be made solely by automation, human review is required for contested or negative decisions, and the Secretary must regularly test for accuracy and bias, reporting results annually to Congress.
The bill mandates data sharing and integration consistent with specific federal privacy and data protection laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974, the E-Government Act of 2002, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, and section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure new provisions align with existing legal frameworks without needing to reproduce lengthy statutory text. It ensures legal compliance for data sharing activities.
Case for: Supporters argue that referencing these established laws ensures that all data sharing under the modernized SAVE program adheres to robust privacy, security, and data protection standards, providing a necessary legal foundation.
Case against: Critics might contend that merely referencing these complex laws without further explanation makes it difficult for the public to fully understand the extent of data sharing, the specific protections in place, or potential loopholes, thereby obscuring the true privacy implications.
Estimated impact: Ensures that all data integration and sharing activities undertaken for SAVE modernization are legally compliant with a comprehensive set of federal privacy and data protection statutes.
This section explicitly prohibits charging any fee to a Federal, State, local, or Tribal government agency for submitting a verification query through the SAVE program.
Section 3
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for administrative and funding directives. It ensures that the program remains accessible to all authorized government entities without financial barriers.
Case for: Proponents argue that this prohibition ensures equitable access to the SAVE program for all government agencies, regardless of their budget constraints, thereby maximizing the program's reach and effectiveness in preventing erroneous benefit payments.
Case against: Some might argue that allowing USCIS to charge a nominal fee could provide a dedicated revenue stream to help fund the significant modernization efforts mandated by the bill, reducing reliance on general appropriations and potentially accelerating upgrades.
Estimated impact: Prevents USCIS from recovering any costs associated with SAVE program usage directly from querying agencies, meaning the program's operational and modernization costs must be covered by other federal appropriations.
If the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security identifies material non-compliance with this Act, the Secretary must submit a corrective action plan to Congress within 90 days. Continued non-compliance may lead to limitations on the use of funds for non-SAVE discretionary activities, as determined by Congress, and could trigger the suspension of SAVE queries until compliance is restored.
Section 4(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for establishing accountability and enforcement mechanisms. It provides Congress with tools to ensure executive branch compliance with statutory mandates.
Case for: Supporters argue that these strong enforcement provisions are essential to ensure DHS prioritizes and effectively implements the SAVE modernization, providing Congress with necessary leverage to address any failures or delays.
Case against: Critics might contend that the potential for suspending SAVE queries due to non-compliance could disrupt critical government services that rely on the program for eligibility verification, potentially harming individuals and creating administrative chaos.
Estimated impact: Creates a powerful incentive for the Department of Homeland Security to ensure timely and accurate implementation of the SAVE modernization, backed by potential financial penalties and operational disruptions for non-compliance.