HB8635, the VERIFY Act of 2026, would direct the Department of Homeland Security, through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to modernize the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. The bill focuses on improving the speed, accuracy, and reliability of immigration-status verification used by government agencies to determine eligibility for public benefits and other lawful purposes. It requires upgrades to query-processing infrastructure, automated reconciliation with source systems, expanded API access for authorized agencies, and a feedback process for reporting suspected data errors.
The bill also sets timeliness and interoperability requirements. It would require immigration-status changes to be reflected in SAVE within 24 hours when practicable, and it directs DHS to integrate SAVE with other relevant federal systems and pursue data-sharing arrangements with the Social Security Administration and, where permissible, state vital records agencies. The bill includes safeguards limiting data use to eligibility verification, prohibits use of SAVE for general law enforcement or surveillance, and allows automated tools only for reconciliation and identity matching, with human review required for adverse or contested determinations. It also bars fees for government agencies using the system and establishes oversight through a modernization plan, annual Inspector General audits, and corrective action requirements if noncompliance is found.
If enacted, the bill would amend how the federal SAVE program operates under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 by imposing new modernization, reporting, and oversight obligations on DHS and USCIS. It would also affect federal, state, local, and tribal agencies that rely on SAVE for immigration-status verification by improving access and eliminating query fees, while potentially changing how quickly eligibility determinations can be updated after immigration-status changes. The bill does not expand SAVE into criminal-history or general law-enforcement uses, and it preserves privacy-law constraints on data sharing and notifications.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a technical modernization and administrative efficiency bill rather than a broad policy change. Its stated goals—greater accuracy, faster updates, and stronger oversight—suggest a generally pro-administration and pro-integrity posture toward eligibility verification. Because there are no transcripts or votes provided, there is no documented public sentiment in the record beyond the bill’s own emphasis on reliability, privacy, and limited use.
The main potential points of contention are privacy, data-sharing, and automation. The bill authorizes broader interoperability with federal systems and encourages data-sharing with state vital records agencies, which could raise concerns about the scope of government data exchange even though it is limited by privacy laws. Another possible issue is the use of automated or algorithmic tools: the bill permits them for reconciliation and identity matching, but requires human review for negative or contested decisions and annual bias testing, reflecting concern that automation could produce errors or unfair outcomes. Some may also object to the bill’s enforcement mechanisms, including the possibility of suspending SAVE queries or limiting funds if DHS fails to comply.