SAFE Act Targets Senior Federal Staff: Intentional Privacy Violations Could Mean Personal Lawsuits and Lost Immunity

The Security and Accountability For Everyone Act of 2025 (SAFE Act) is taking a big swing at how the federal government handles your personal data, specifically by changing who pays the price when things go sideways. Right now, if the government messes up your privacy under the Privacy Act of 1974, you generally sue the agency. This bill changes the game entirely by letting you sue the individual federal employee directly if their violation was intentional or willful and caused you demonstrable harm.

The New High-Stakes Game for Federal Employees

This isn't about targeting every intern or entry-level staffer. The bill focuses on high-level personnel—specifically those at a GS-13 level or higher (or equivalent senior positions) who aren't serving on advisory committees. If one of these senior staff members intentionally or willfully violates your privacy rights, they lose their biggest shield: immunity. That’s right; the standard defense that federal employees can’t be sued personally for actions taken in their official capacity is taken off the table for these specific, intentional misconduct cases (SEC. 2).

Who Pays the Bill? Not the Government

Here’s the part that hits hard: If a court finds the employee guilty of an intentional or willful violation, that employee is personally responsible for paying the damages awarded to you. The bill explicitly states that the United States government will not be liable for paying that specific amount. Imagine a senior analyst making a willful mistake with a database that causes real harm; they could be on the hook for thousands of dollars out of their own pocket. But wait, there’s more. If the Department of Justice defends the employee in court and the employee is ultimately found guilty of that intentional misconduct, the court must order the employee to pay back the DOJ for the cost of their legal defense. This creates a massive financial risk for senior federal staff.

Accountability or Litigation Headache?

For the average person, this is a clear win for accountability. If a high-ranking official abuses their access to your sensitive data, you now have a direct path to justice against the person responsible, rather than just the massive bureaucracy they work for. This provision also grants State Attorneys General the power to sue the federal personnel or the agency if they believe their state residents have been harmed by an intentional privacy violation (SEC. 2). This gives states a powerful new tool to protect their citizens’ data.

However, the massive personal financial liability—damages plus repaying the government’s legal fees—raises a real question about the chilling effect this might have. Will qualified people still want to take on senior federal roles if an error in judgment, even if deemed “willful,” could bankrupt them? While the intent is to deter malicious behavior, the line between procedural error and “willful” misconduct can be blurry in a complex legal environment, potentially exposing employees to costly litigation even when their intentions were not malicious. This is a crucial trade-off between maximizing accountability and ensuring the government can still recruit top talent.