The Brief

If you visited a Planned Parenthood in the continental United States in the past few years then the company Near Intelligence, a data broker, probably knew it — and may have sold that information to anti-abortion activists. If you attended certain houses of worship or patronized particular pharmacies, the data broker known as Outlogic allegedly sold that information.

Near Intelligence filed for bankruptcy in December. Outlogic agreed to a settlement with the Federal Trade Commision to stop selling user location data, while insisting regulators had found “no misuse of any data.” Both were among nearly 90 companies on the latest version of the California data broker registry that self-reported selling data about where people are or have been.

For the first time this year California requires data brokers — companies that knowingly collect and sell consumer’s data to third parties — to report if they collect location data. New state transparency requirements that kicked in this year also revealed that roughly two dozen companies collect personal data about children and about a dozen collect reproductive health data about people who are pregnant.

Do data brokers somewhere have data about you? Almost certainly. Most everywhere you go on your digital journey will collect traces of information about you. If you’ve been on the internet in the past few years, you’ve probably seen a bunch of notices asking if it’s okay for the website you’re on to collect your “cookies” — information that allows the website to remember you, essentially. Some apps on your phone may track your location. It’s hard to say precisely what information about you is where because there are so many variables — your privacy settings, the sites you visit, what you buy and from whom, etc. — but data brokers are in the business of finding, collecting, and selling that data to other businesses.

Brokers sell your web activity and other personal information to companies that may target advertising to you or make important decisions about your life, such as whether you get an apartment, whether your activity is labeled fraudulent, or how you’re treated by insurance companies.

The market is largely unregulated.

Selling data about people is the cornerstone of the modern internet economy, powering targeted advertising based on insights gleaned from personal data. Media investment company GroupM forecast $258 billion in digital advertising revenue this year.

To give people visibility into who sells their personal data for profit, four years ago California started requiring data brokers to register once a year. Since then, a new registry has come out each year based on those submissions.

The latest registry debuted one month ago with more detailed information and is now maintained by a relatively new state agency. A law passed last fall introduces new consumer rights and more stringent requirements for brokers.

Here are some important things to know:

How can data brokers harm you or your loved ones?

Data brokers can sell data to bad actors ranging from scam artists to adversarial foreign governments. In testimony to a congressional committee one year ago, Georgetown Law Center associate professor Laura Moy said data brokers selling information to law enforcement agencies could amount to a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to live free from unreasonable search and seizure.

From Beijing to Brussels to Washington D.C. and U.S. state capitals, government regulators are creating registries and business reporting rules that aim to prevent privacy violations or harmful forms of artificial intelligence. Privacy advocates have urged the creation of a national data broker registry with the Federal Trade Commission for years, but no such registry exists yet.

Who protects my privacy rights?

California voters passed a ballot measure in 2020 that gives consumers the right to access information collected about them, delete or modify that information, or tell a broker they cannot sell or share that information. Consumers can initiate the process by sending an email to a point of contact listed on the registry website. Then they have to present a copy of their ID like a driver’s license to prove who they are. Consumers and people under 18 can also work with an authorized agent, somebody who makes data deletion requests on their behalf. Companies like Transcend and nonprofit organizations like Consumer Reports offer consumer data deletion services.

To enforce these rights, the ballot measure created the California Privacy Protection Agency and a five-member board to govern its activity.

Companies that buy, sell, or share the personal data of at least 100,000 Californians or get a majority of annual revenue from selling data are required to comply with the consumer privacy law.

What’s new?

The most recent changes to California’s data broker registry — which took effect in January — require brokers to disclose whether they sell data about kids, pregnant people, or anyone’s geolocation data.

But relatively soon — at the speed state governments operate — consumers should be able to delete data collected about them.

Right now, consumers must go to hundreds of data brokers one at a time if they want them to delete their data.

Last fall, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Delete Act giving consumers a way to delete data from all registered brokers by using a single tool or website.

Under the law — authored by state Sen. Josh Becker, a Democrat from Menlo Park — the state’s privacy agency must launch a website by 2026 that allows Californinans to delete their data in 30 seconds or less. The Delete Act doubles the cost if data brokers fail to register to $200 a day as well as costs associated with action brought by the state attorney general. By 2028, audits must verify that data brokers are complying with the Delete Act.

The other major change is that the Delete Act requires brokers to delete any information they collect about a consumer, not just information shared directly from a consumer, closing what privacy advocates called a crucial loophole that existed in the right to delete granted to consumers under the California Consumer Privacy Act.

The law also shifts responsibility for maintaining the registry from the Department of Justice to the California Privacy Protection Agency. That means that power to determine which companies fail to register and comply with state privacy law or the Delete Act is decided by enforcement officers within that privacy agency.

And it’s up to the agency to decide whether companies should register as data brokers.

The enforcement division has received more than 1,200 complaints from July 2023 to February 2024, according to a staff update last month. The majority of those complaints concern the right to delete data collected about individuals.

Is California’s data broker registry comprehensive?

Since data brokers do not have a direct relationship with consumers, most people have never heard of companies that buy and sell data. But the registry is not comprehensive, not yet at least.

The registry that launched March 1 includes roughly 450 businesses and email points of contact. Brokers were required to register by Jan. 31, but in a meeting held last month, privacy protection agency attorney Liz Travis Allen warned that “If you look at the whole universe of every data broker, we don’t have that list. But that would be something we can enforce on, to figure out who isn’t registered and should be.”

The 2023 registry maintained by the state Justice Department listed 550 companies.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse head of privacy Emory Roane was a co-sponsor of the Delete Act. He said it’s “really cool” that the privacy protection agency data broker registry illuminates metrics that you couldn’t see before like the number of companies that track your location or collect data about kids and people who are pregnant, or that the credit score agency Experian collects all three. But he said the registry is clearly incomplete. The state of Vermont defines a data broker the same way as California, also maintains a data broker registry registry, and created its registry around the same time as California, but it lists 660 companies.

That discrepancy “suggests that there is a problem with non-registered data brokers,” he told CalMatters in an email. “As to how many brokers aren’t registered, well, that’s anyone’s guess. It could be dozens, hundreds, or even thousands.”

A January Consumer Reports study involving nearly 700 volunteers who shared the data Meta collects about them on Facebook and Instagram found that the average person is tracked by more than 2,220 companies.

How can I tell a data broker to delete my data?

Each company maintains its own privacy policy, but deleting the data it collects on you can be as simple as sending an email to the broker, whose contact email is listed on the registry. California law requires the broker to respond within 90 days.

You can also use third parties tools like the Permission Slip app to tell data brokers to delete your data.

Brokers must detail how you can delete or modify data in a privacy policy listed on their website. If a business fails to act in those 90 days, you can file a complaint with California’s privacy protection agency.

To quickly view the complete list of companies that sell kids data, reproductive health data, or geolocation data, toggle the arrow buttons at the top of the screen on California’s online registry site.

How do I delete data collected about my kid?

A parent or guardian who wishes to make a deletion request on a child’s behalf may do so by following the same steps necessary for any other Californian, but a business may require them to verify their identity with a government-issued ID card or phone or video call with a trained professional.

What’s next in California?

The state’s privacy protection agency is already developing a single-click data deletion option. The enforcement division will contact companies they believe should be part of the registry or face fines, fees, or legal action.

How aggressive will California’s consumer privacy agency really be? One test is how frequently it issues fines and fees for brokers who fail to register. Privacy protection agency deputy director of external affairs Megan White wouldn’t say when enforcement officers will contact companies that they determined must register as data brokers and are in violation of the law.

Roane said he hopes for, and expects, “eager enforcers more vigilantly holding non-registering and non-conforming data brokers to account.”

In July, California will begin requiring data brokers to publicly report on their own websites the number of requests they receive to delete, modify, or share what data they collected about individuals, and the median amount of time it takes to fulfill those requests.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power says crews made significant progress overnight to repair a rupture in a 100-year-old water main in West Hollywood that caused a massive sink hole and severe flooding in the area on Thursday.

Repairs included cutting and removing a 25-foot-long section of the broken pipe and putting a replacement in place.

The department said the pipe will be repressurized, checked for leaks, and tested for regulatory compliance. It will need to be refilled before street paving.

The department doesn't have a specific completion date for the fix.

Sunset Boulevard between Sherbourne Drive and San Vicente Boulevard is still closed to traffic. Nearby streets have limited access, including at Cynthia and San Vicente, for public safety.

A map of road closures provided by LADWP as of July 18.

(

Courtesy LADWP

)

Dialog Cafe on Holloway Drive said on Instagram on Thursday the cafe sustained significant damage and didn't know when it can reopen.

And Book Soup said today on social media it hopes to reopen within a few days.

Republicans are leaning into immigration enforcement as one of their top campaign issues this midterm cycle — despite a rocky start to the year for messaging on the president's top policy.

An NPR analysis of advertisement data from the firm AdImpact shows that when it comes to immigration, Republicans are spending more money and running more ads than Democrats are. The data set includes ads purchased from January through June, before immigration enforcement officers shot and killed people in Maine and Texas this month.

These political ads offer one indication of where each party sees its momentum going with voters, as candidates across the country gear up for the general election in November. The data suggests Republicans see immigration as a winning issue: Since the start of the year, Republicans and their supporting organizations have run nearly 300 ads nationwide that either include a mention of immigration or are solely about immigration. This compares to 62 ads from Democrats and their supporting organizations.

"Republicans stood up for Americans. Democrats sat down for illegals. Thomas Massie sides with these radical-left lunatics," reads one ad funded by the MAGA KY PAC, a political action committee that was set up to defeat Republican Rep. Thomas Massie in the primary. The ad cost over $831,000; Massie, a frequent critic of President Trump, went on to lose his race to Trump-endorsed candidate Ed Gallrein.

Among the most expensive was a $928,000 ad buy in the Michigan governor's race.

"No greater example of waste, fraud, and abuse in Michigan than using our tax dollars to give benefits to illegal immigrants. As governor, I'll be incredibly supportive of ICE coming here and removing these fraudsters," says Republican candidate Perry Johnson, who calls himself a "MAGA Conservative" and has pitched his business approach to running a state.

Immigration was a winning issue for Republicans in the 2024 elections, with themes like increasing border security and reducing crime.

"Campaigns are not trying to change minds. They're trying to shape what the election's about. They're trying to energize the voters they already have," said Cameron Shelton, a professor of political economy at Claremont McKenna College. "If Republicans are investing much more heavily in immigration advertising, one interpretation is that they believe immigration is exactly that kind of [mobilizing] issue in today's electorate."

Immigration and enforcement are among the top issues for both parties

Most of the ads have run during the primary season, which is now more than half over. Since more than 90% of seats up for grabs in gubernatorial, House and Senate races are considered safe for one party or another, the primary campaign has become decisive for many candidates nationwide.

Some Democrats became more vocal on the issue of immigration at the start of 2026, particularly in states that were seeing intense waves of enforcement. Democrats in New Jersey, Illinois and Minnesota, for example, referenced the administration's tactics in their calls to "abolish ICE," or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and argued the administration had gone too far.

The Illinois Future PAC ran two ads, each worth more than $800,000, earlier this year to support Juliana Stratton's stance on abolishing ICE. The current lieutenant governor later won the Illinois Democratic primary for Senate.

But months into the year, Democrats have prioritized other topics, often to differentiate themselves from members of their own party, like on healthcare, while Republicans are keeping immigration-related themes on Americans' screens.

During the primary season, Shelton said, campaigns are testing out the issues they think might matter through the general election.

For both parties, "Donald Trump" is the top subject in TV ad buys, according to data from AdImpact. "Immigration" is the issue with the second-highest spending for Republicans; for Democrats, "ICE" is the third-highest, after "healthcare."

"It's a signal to donors, it's a signal to activists, to interest groups, to local candidates. It helps coordinate a lot of the actors that we think of as the party," Shelton said. "That's another reason why some of these early ads are interesting, because they are signals of the direction that is trying to be set out."

Republicans link top issues to immigration

Between January and June, Republicans outspent Democrats on immigration-related political advertising by about $36 million. Republican ads focused on immigration, which total $53 million in spending, have aired across the country in 88 races and 27 states. Ads for Democratic candidates, which total $17 million, have run in 20 races and 11 states, primarily those that have seen increased immigration enforcement action like California, New York and Illinois.

"Republican candidates have a large menu of issues we are on the right side of that are all very popular amongst voters," said Mike Marinella, national press secretary at the National Republican Congressional Committee. He listed the border, crime and the economy as issues that Republican candidates can connect to immigration.

"Immigration intersects with each of them," he said. "The most effective message depends on the district and how those issues are affecting that particular community," he added.

Zach Lahn, who won the GOP primary bid for Iowa governor, spent about $475,000 on an ad in May that vowed to ban H-1B visa holders from being hired by Iowa government agencies and universities, linking immigration and economic concerns.

Crossings at the border have plummeted since Trump took office. Marinella said candidates are still keeping the issue of border security top of mind for their voters.

A majority of the ads promoting Republican candidates include keywords such as "securing the border" and discuss border wall funding and crime. Some also go a step further to talk about specific proposals supported by the administration, such as limiting commercial driver's licenses and supporting the SAVE America Act, which would require stricter proof of citizenship to vote.

For example, in Florida's 19th congressional district, Jim Oberweis, one of several candidates vying for the GOP seat, spent $880,000 on seven ads that advocated for ending birthright citizenship.

Democrats lean into pro-immigration statements

Ads promoting Democratic candidates, on the other hand, shy away from specific policy proposals. Instead, they include criticism of incumbents for recent votes on bills that have provided funding to immigration officers or expanded the scope of who could be detained. Others focus on personal connections to immigration, proposals to limit enforcement and general pro-immigrant statements.

"Democrats are finding their voice on immigration after a rough few years during the Biden administration," said Frank Sharry, senior fellow at Third Way, a centrist think tank. "I don't think they'll be running a bunch of ads on it. I do think they'll be speaking to the issue and winning the argument, which is more important than whether they run ads on it or not."

A poll from Gallup released in July shows that most Americans think immigration is a good thing, and a majority support some form of pathway to citizenship rather than a blanket deportation policy — though there are sharp differences by party. A majority of Republicans favor hiring more Border Patrol agents, deporting anyone without legal status and banning sanctuary cities.

Republican ads broadcast during Senate races in Ohio, Texas and Alaska and gubernatorial contests in New York and Iowa are already starting to target Democrats. Strategists said this trend suggests how each party may lean into immigration leading up to the November election. But they also caution against reading too much into advertisements to gauge party strategy.

"Back in the day, ads were king. Now you have so many diverse streams of information arriving to people on their phones that it's just not the same," Third Way's Sharry said, noting interviews, debates, and other forms of public statements aren't captured in the ad data.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Making daylight saving time permanent moved a step closer to reality this week, when the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to pass a measure to eliminate the annual clock-changing ritual.

But some Orthodox Jewish organizations are fighting to prevent the bill from becoming law.

The measure, called the Sunshine Protection Act, passed in a 308-117 vote in the House on Tuesday (July 14). It now heads to the Senate, where its passage is uncertain. President Donald Trump has championed the effort, describing on his Truth Social account moving the clocks forward and back as a "ridiculous, twice yearly production."

If passed, the bill would give Americans an extra hour of sunshine in the evenings during the winter. But it would also push winter sunrises one hour later. That's of concern to Orthodox Jews, who pray three times a day, beginning with the Shacharit morning prayer service, which by tradition cannot begin in the dark.

"The bottom line is, if prayers have to start an hour later that will have a direct effect on people getting to work and on when schools can start," said Rabbi A.D. Motzen, national director of government affairs for Agudath Israel of America, an organization representing U.S. Orthodox Jews.

A constellation of other Orthodox Jewish groups also opposes the measure, including the Orthodox Union and the Coalition for Jewish Values.

In Jewish law, some prayers, such as those in the morning service, can only be said communally, in a quorum of 10 Jewish adults, called a minyan. That requirement means going to synagogue every morning before heading out for work or school and saying prayers, such as the Shema, the central prayer of Jewish life, collectively. The morning service typically lasts 35 minutes but on some occasions can last close to an hour.

"It becomes a communal issue when, for example, a synagogue that has had a morning prayer service for 100 years suddenly does not have a quorum of 10 men who can show up at the prayer time close to 9 o'clock because they have jobs," Motzen said.

Motzen, who works in the Washington, D.C., office of Agudath Israel, said the organization already has the support of Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who last year objected to fast-tracking the bill.

Orthodox Jews make up only 9% of the estimated 5.8 million Jewish adults in the U.S., according to Pew Research Center. Larger Jewish groups have not publicly taken a position.

Congress has grappled with turning back the clocks many times. In 1974, it tried to abandon clock-switching, but repealed the law a few months later following public outcry. In 2022, the Senate unanimously passed a measure making daylight savings time permanent, but the bill died in the House.

Orthodox Jews are not the only constituencies opposed to the change. Some medical and health advocates argue that the human body's internal clock is better aligned with the sun during standard time rather than daylight saving time. School boards and parents are also concerned about children walking to school in pitch-black conditions during winter mornings.

That latter concern, which Motzen described as a safety issue, is one Orthodox Jews share as well.

Making daylight saving time permanent would make sunrise after 8 a.m. in most parts of the country, and after 9 a.m. in a few select places. For example, according to a list compiled by Agudath Israel, sunrise would take place after 9 a.m., (and as late as 9:13 a.m.) for 55 days a year in South Bend, Indiana. In Detroit, Michigan, sunrise would take place after 9 a.m. for 23 days a year.

Hawaii and most of Arizona abide by standard time year round, as do Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands.

This story was produced through a collaboration between NPR and Religion News Service.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Updated July 18, 2026 at 14:11 PM ET

After Medicaid officials improperly shared data about millions of people in January with immigration officials, ICE then shared that data with the data analytics firm Palantir, according to new court filings. Palantir operates an app called ELITE that is used by ICE agents to show the addresses of noncitizens who may be subject to deportation.

That revelation was made public in a motion filed Thursday by more than 20 Democratic attorneys general who sued the Trump administration last year over its data-sharing agreement between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and ICE.

Palantir said in a statement to NPR that the dataset in question had been purged.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in California ruled in December that health officials could share with ICE certain details from Medicaid data about immigrants without lawful status from the states that had sued, such as home addresses, dates of birth and immigration status.

Chhabria, who was appointed by former President Obama, then temporarily paused data sharing between CMS and ICE for immigration enforcement purposes in late May after federal officials admitted CMS had shared data with ICE in January that went beyond what the court order allowed. One dataset of refugees in Minnesota included U.S. citizens, and another that was transferred on Jan. 7 contained data of millions of people, including those in the country legally.

ICE was supposed to delete the improperly shared data. Chhabria set a hearing for August to further clarify his order and clear up ambiguity regarding which categories of noncitizens' data could be lawfully shared with ICE.

But in recent days, federal officials have admitted to additional instances of improper data sharing.

In a court filing last week, the Justice Department said that CMS again inadvertently reshared with ICE the dataset with millions of names that CMS had first improperly shared with ICE in January. The government said the error occurred during an effort to share data from states not involved in the lawsuit.

Alberto Briseno, a section chief for ICE's Homeland Security Investigations, wrote in a declaration that ICE personnel deleted the file after it was discovered and it was not used for law enforcement purposes.

Then Briseno revealed that a day later, the agency had done a broader search and discovered that half a dozen users still had a copy of the Jan. 7 dataset.

In that most recent declaration, Briseno said he was not aware of any additional copies of the dataset, but said the recent searches have "highlighted technological difficulties of making a representation that every possible variation of the file has been searched for and located." He added, "ICE will continue to make good faith efforts to delete any copies that may be found in the future."

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is asking the judge to expand his order to allow ICE to receive data on a broader category of noncitizens – to potentially include all immigrants who are not legal permanent residents, citizens or have another form of permanent status.

"ICE's inability to identify Medicaid records in its possession undercuts any claim that the agency should be entitled to more access to that data," the Democratic attorneys generals wrote in their motion filed late Thursday.

Their motion continued, "Each successive revelation of a violation of the Order makes it more difficult for Plaintiff States to have confidence in Defendants' ability to maintain and secure this data in compliance with the Order, and more difficult for Plaintiff States to communicate assurances to Medicaid providers, enrollees (and their counsel), and the public at large about the privacy and confidentiality of their healthcare data."

Palantir provided the following statement to NPR: "Our customers control their own data and manage access to that data. When Palantir employees are granted access to a customer's dataset, it is solely to help integrate and analyze that data — which is what our software does — not to store it or use it for our own purposes. Palantir can confirm that the dataset in question was purged pursuant to government instruction."

DHS didn't immediately return a request for comment about its transfer of data to Palantir.

According to a declaration filed by California deputy attorney general Anna Rich, when plaintiffs asked what federal officials did to ensure Palantir and other contractors had purged the data, defendants responded that the data had been shared over a Microsoft Teams chat and the shared data was deleted from the chat. Rich shared in her declaration a document turned over in discovery from federal officials that shows a redacted transcript of what appears to be ICE personnel asking Palantir to delete the file.

In an April 30 hearing, Chhabria had warned the federal government would not be able to continue using Medicaid data for deportation efforts if it continued improperly sharing the data of citizens and legal immigrants.

"If the federal government cannot be sufficiently careful then it can't use the information, ok?" Chhabria had said.

Copyright 2026 NPR