A federal judge has once again intervened to block staff members from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive personal information belonging to millions of Americans within the Social Security Administration (SSA). This critical decision, which includes a preliminary injunction, stems from a lawsuit initiated by a coalition of unions and retirees based in Maryland. This case is one among several lawsuits aimed at raising concerns about the extent of data that DOGE has been allowed to access and the potential implications of such access.
In a comprehensive 148-page memorandum released late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander articulated that the core issue is not the objectives of DOGE or the SSA but rather the methods employed to achieve those goals. Judge Hollander noted that while addressing issues of fraud, waste, and mismanagement within the SSA is undoubtedly in the public interest, it does not grant the government the authority to disregard the law in pursuit of these aims. The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining privacy and adhering to legal protocols, particularly regarding sensitive data.
Previously, on March 20, Judge Hollander issued a temporary restraining order against DOGE, questioning the rationale behind the agency's broad approach to accessing Social Security data that contains personally identifiable information (PII). She likened DOGE's heavy-handed methods to "hitting a fly with a sledgehammer." Following this, on April 1, a federal appeals court dismissed attempts by the Trump administration to lift the restraining order, reinforcing the need for careful scrutiny over how such sensitive data is handled.
In her latest ruling, Judge Hollander expressed skepticism about the Trump administration's justification for granting a select group of DOGE staffers extensive access to SSA's data systems. She emphasized that the SSA has maintained a foundational principle of privacy regarding its records for nearly 90 years, and this case reveals significant vulnerabilities in that principle. Furthermore, SSA's Acting Commissioner, Lee Dudek, had previously outlined three specific projects necessitating DOGE's access to PII, but the judge found these explanations to be vague and insufficient.
The recent ruling imposes critical restrictions on DOGE staffers, prohibiting them from accessing any Social Security databases containing PII. It mandates that they delete any non-anonymized data currently in their possession from these databases and remove any software they had previously installed on SSA systems. Additionally, DOGE members are barred from accessing or altering any Social Security code. Notably, these restrictions do not apply to non-DOGE SSA staff or to DOGE members who wish to utilize anonymized data and have undergone appropriate privacy training.
Concerns regarding DOGE's data access extend beyond this particular ruling. The Social Security Administration is just one of several federal agencies where judges have raised alarms about the potential legal violations associated with the Elon Musk-led DOGE initiative in its efforts to access sensitive government databases. Recently, a high-ranking ally of Elon Musk within the SSA has been reported to have propagated questionable claims regarding noncitizen voting, seemingly leveraging personal data that court documents indicate DOGE should not possess.
As this situation unfolds, both NPR and various stakeholders continue to seek comments from DOGE and the SSA to better understand the implications of these developments on data privacy and governance.
