A federal judge has imposed new restrictions on Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), limiting its access to Social Security systems containing personal data of millions of Americans. The restrictions come in response to a case filed by labor unions and retirees alleging that DOGE’s recent actions violate privacy laws and pose significant information security risks. The judge’s preliminary injunction permits access to redacted data by trained and background-checked staffers, but mandates the removal of any non-anonymized Social Security data received since Jan. 20, as well as restrictions on code changes and disclosures.
Judge Ellen Hollander emphasized the importance of privacy, noting the nearly century-long tradition of the Social Security Administration operating with an expectation of privacy regarding its records. While acknowledging the government’s aim to combat fraud and misuse of funds, the judge expressed concerns about the methods DOGE intended to employ in achieving this goal. Questions were raised during the court hearing about why DOGE needed extensive access to sensitive personal data when purposes could potentially be served with anonymized information, which could streamline the analysis process without violating privacy rights.
A significant concern in the case is the privacy violation posed by DOGE’s access to an array of sensitive information, such as medical records and data related to children and disabled individuals, which could have a harmful stigma attached. Plaintiffs argue that the extent of data access sought by DOGE represents a significant departure from standard practices within the agency and raises fears among Social Security recipients about their personal information being exploited. Despite arguments that access to anonymized information might be burdensome, opponents insist that recognizably intrusive access could provoke considerable discomfort among affected individuals.
Following upheaval within the Social Security Administration during Trump’s second term, DOGE encountered resistance from officials unwilling to comply with its data access demands. The former acting commissioner resigned after refusing DOGE’s requests, and her replacement, Leland Dudek, faced criticism for controversial decisions related to data access. Calls for resignation arose after an order requiring Maine parents to register newborns for Social Security numbers at a federal office was interpreted as political retribution. The judge’s order specifying access restrictions applies to DOGE personnel but does not hinder SSA employees performing routine tasks unless they are affiliated with DOGE.
Amid legal challenges, Judge Hollander has actively pushed for clarity on why DOGE necessitates such extensive access to personal data, particularly in comparison to similar cases involving other agencies. While Humphreys, representing the Trump administration, argued that DOGE needs the access for efficiency, opponents underscored the potential harm posed by indiscriminate data access. The case comes at a time of heightened political tension, with implications extending beyond privacy concerns. While Hollander sought to uphold principles of privacy and due process, political motivations and policy disagreements threatened to cloud the proceedings.
As the case progresses, options for appeals and further legal actions remain open, with potential implications for other cases involving DOGE’s data access at various federal agencies. The broader context of the case reflects broader debates surrounding privacy, government efficiency, and the interpretive reach of executive orders. Against a backdrop of political controversies and policy disputes, Judge Hollander has stressed the importance of impartial inquiry and due process to safeguard the privacy and rights of citizens affected by DOGE’s data access policies.
