In Arizona, a secretive program has quietly amassed a staggering trove of financial data on tens of millions of Americans and individuals worldwide, all under the guise of fighting crime. The Transaction Record Analysis Center (“TRAC”), operated with oversight from the Arizona Attorney General’s office, has ballooned into a mass surveillance juggernaut, collecting over 340 million financial transaction records with little public scrutiny. Initially designed to curb money laundering and human smuggling, TRAC’s expansive reach and lack of transparency have sparked fierce criticism from privacy advocates and lawmakers alike, raising urgent questions about unchecked power, constitutional violations, and the erosion of personal privacy in the name of security.

TRAC was initially established to collect records of financial transactions crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to combat money laundering and track human smugglers, often referred to as “coyotes.” It began with a 2006 attempt by then-Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard to issue an administrative subpoena demanding records of all wire transfers over $500 originating or terminating in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. Western Union resisted, offering anonymized data, but the Attorney General’s office deemed this insufficient. Western Union challenged the subpoena in court, and the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in 2006 that the subpoena was overly broad, stating it “would make the investigative power granted … limitless” under Arizona’s racketeering statute, A.R.S. § 13-2315. 

Undeterred, Goddard sued Western Union directly, securing a settlement in 2010 that required the company to provide detailed transaction records. A second settlement in 2014 formalized TRAC as a nonprofit entity to house these records, funded initially by Western Union payments and later by federal agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). Five of Western Union’s largest competitors, including MoneyGram, were also compelled to contribute data to TRAC.

In 2022, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) exposed TRAC’s existence, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) to file public records requests. The ACLU obtained over 200 documents revealing the program’s massive scope: by 2021, TRAC’s database contained 145 million records of financial transactions, collected through at least 140 administrative subpoenas issued by the Arizona Attorney General’s office. These subpoenas were deemed illegal by the ACLU, as they violated the 2006 Arizona Court of Appeals ruling prohibiting such broad demands for financial records. The database was accessible to over 700 law enforcement entities, including local sheriff’s offices, major police departments like the Los Angeles Police Department and New York Police Department, federal agencies, and even military police units. By 2021, 12,000 individual users had login privileges.

ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit further escalated the program by issuing “customs summonses” starting in 2019 to collect approximately six million records from Western Union and Maxitransfers Corporation for transactions over $500. These summonses were not intended for such bulk data collection and were paused in early 2022 after Wyden raised concerns about their legality, citing disproportionate impacts on low-income, minority, and immigrant communities. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) withdrew these summonses following Wyden’s inquiries, but the program continued under state authority.

Under Attorney General Kris Mayes, who took office in January 2023 after switching from the Republican to the Democratic Party in 2019, TRAC has continued to expand. A July 2024 HSI newsletter reported that 22 companies were actively providing data to TRAC. Recent reporting by The Intercept estimates that TRAC’s database now holds over 340 million records, a significant increase from the 145 million reported in 2021. 

More concerning is TRAC’s increasing opacity under Mayes’ tenure. Unlike her predecessor, Mark Brnovich, who released documents to the ACLU, Mayes’ office has largely refused to disclose updated records about TRAC’s operations, including its growth and relationship with ICE and DHS. The office claims that releasing such information would violate A.R.S. § 13-2315, which shields the data obtained by subpoenas but not the subpoenas themselves. The ACLU has called this argument “wrong and borderline frivolous.”

TRAC, nominally a separate nonprofit, has also denied public records requests, claiming it is not subject to Arizona’s public records law. However, a 2019 TRAC manual obtained by the ACLU indicated that the Arizona Attorney General’s office directly supervised TRAC, with the authority to appoint its board members and designate its chair. TRAC’s current president, in a December 2024 letter to The Intercept, claimed the organization is “governed entirely independently” of the Attorney General’s office but refused to provide updated bylaws to substantiate this claim.

The Intercept filed a public records lawsuit against Mayes’ office in June 2025, alleging that the office and TRAC engage in “gamesmanship” to avoid transparency. When records are requested from the Attorney General’s office, it claims TRAC holds them; when TRAC is approached, it claims the Attorney General’s office has them. This lack of accountability persists despite evidence of close coordination between the two entities. 

The program’s scale and secrecy raise significant privacy concerns. TRAC’s data collection disproportionately affects marginalized communities, such as immigrants and low-income individuals, who rely on money transfer services like Western Union and MoneyGram due to limited access to traditional banking. The ACLU argues that the program violates Arizona law and the Fourth Amendment, as it collects sensitive financial data without individualized suspicion. A class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in 2022 by four individuals whose data was swept up in TRAC alleges that the program violates federal and California financial privacy laws. The case remains ongoing, with Western Union, MoneyGram, DHS, and ICE named as defendants but not TRAC or the Arizona Attorney General’s office directly.

Defenders of TRAC, including Mayes’ office, argue that it is an effective tool for combating money laundering, human trafficking, and drug smuggling. A spokesperson for Mayes stated in 2023 that the program has led to “hundreds of leads and busts involving drug cartels and money laundering,” though no specific evidence of abuse has been documented. However, critics, including the ACLU and Sen. Wyden, contend that the program’s indiscriminate data collection and lack of oversight undermine constitutional protections and public trust.

The secretive collaboration between TRAC, the Arizona Attorney General’s office, and federal agencies like ICE and DHS highlights a broader issue: the use of illegal or overbroad subpoenas to amass sensitive financial data on millions of individuals without suspicion of criminal activity. As TRAC continues to grow and evade scrutiny, it represents a troubling erosion of privacy and accountability. 

The unchecked growth of TRAC and its shroud of secrecy are disrupting the delicate balance between security and privacy. As the Arizona Attorney General’s office and its nonprofit partner evade accountability, millions of financial records—disproportionately from vulnerable communities—remain exposed to sweeping mass surveillance without clear justification or oversight. The program’s defenders tout its role in disrupting criminal networks, but its reliance on legally dubious methods and refusal to disclose basic operational details undermine public trust and constitutional protections. Unless courts, lawmakers, or public pressure force meaningful reforms, TRAC’s trajectory threatens to entrench yet another means of mass surveillance that operates beyond the reach of democratic accountability, leaving citizens to question who truly controls their financial privacy.  

Sources: The Intercept, ACLU, BuzzFeed News, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login