Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
In a major legal setback for the Trump administration, a federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) vast database, which contains sensitive personal information on millions of Americans. The ruling raises serious concerns about privacy violations and the administration’s efforts to overhaul federal agencies.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, in a 137-page decision, ruled that the administration’s actions likely violated the Privacy Act and federal rulemaking laws, siding with labor unions that sued to prevent DOGE from accessing Social Security data. The ruling also orders DOGE officials, including Elon Musk, to delete any non-anonymized personal data they obtained and restricts them from accessing SSA systems.
“The defense does not appear to share a privacy concern for the millions of Americans whose SSA records were made available to DOGE affiliates, without their consent,” wrote Hollander, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
The ruling is a significant blow to President Trump’s broader effort to streamline and downsize federal agencies, a key priority since his return to the White House.
Concerns Over Privacy and Unchecked Authority
The lawsuit, filed by labor unions in February, challenged the legality of SSA’s decision to grant DOGE access to sensitive data, including Social Security numbers, medical records, tax information, and work history. The Justice Department admitted that seven DOGE team members had accessed this information, but failed to provide a clear justification for why it was necessary.
Judge Hollander criticized the administration’s lack of transparency, stating that “Defendants disregarded protocols for proper hiring, onboarding, training, and access limitations” when granting DOGE access to the records.
The judge also questioned why the Justice Department refused to disclose the identities of DOGE team members while simultaneously allowing them to view the private data of millions of Americans.
“The administration has not shown the same level of care with the far more sensitive, confidential data of millions of Americans who entrusted their government with their personal and private information,” Hollander wrote.
Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), hailed the ruling as a victory for privacy rights.
“The court saw that Elon Musk and his unqualified lackeys present a grave danger to Social Security and have illegally accessed the data of millions of Americans,” Saunders said. “This decision will force them to delete the data they have saved and block them from further misuse of our Social Security information.”
Elon Musk’s Role Under Scrutiny
President Trump established DOGE on his first day back in office, appointing Musk—CEO of Tesla and SpaceX—to spearhead the initiative aimed at eliminating government inefficiencies. Though Amy Gleason is officially listed as DOGE’s administrator, Musk’s involvement has sparked controversy, especially as the team has been accused of overstepping legal boundaries.
DOGE has been deployed to over a dozen federal agencies, but concerns over privacy violations and executive overreach have led to at least five lawsuits challenging its authority. Just this week, another federal judge in Maryland ruled that DOGE’s unilateral shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development likely violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and separation of powers.
“The DOGE team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion,” Judge Hollander wrote.
What Happens Next?
With the judge’s ruling in place, DOGE officials must cease all access to SSA systems and delete any personal information they obtained. The case is expected to proceed to a full trial, where the administration will have to justify its data access practices.
Despite Trump’s push to streamline federal operations, privacy advocates argue that such efforts cannot come at the cost of legal safeguards protecting Americans’ personal data.
“Rooting out fraud and waste in federal agencies is a legitimate goal,” Judge Hollander wrote. “But that does not mean the government can flout the law to do so.”
With mounting legal challenges and bipartisan scrutiny, the future of DOGE’s role in government reform remains uncertain.
