Judge Blocks Musk’s DOGE from Accessing Americans’ Personal Social Security Data

On Thursday, a federal judge slapped fresh restrictions on the Department of Government Efficiency, which is led by billionaire Elon Musk. These restrictions involve restricting the department’s access to Social Security systems, which contain personal information on millions of Americans.

Ellen Hollander, a United States District Judge, imposed a preliminary injunction in the case, which was brought by a number of labour unions and pensioners who argue that recent acts taken by DOGE violate privacy laws and raise huge information security dangers. Previously, Hollander had imposed a temporary restraining order against the defendant.

Under the terms of the order, DOGE employees are permitted to access data that has been redacted or stripped of any personally identifiable information, provided that they have been subjected to instruction and background checks.

In a hearing that took place on Tuesday in a federal court in Baltimore, Hollander challenged the attorneys for the government on multiple occasions why the Department of Government Enterprises (DOGE) requires “seemingly unfettered access” to the agency’s troves of sensitive personal information in order to identify Social Security theft.

In order to voice their disapproval of the activities taken by DOGE, which they saw as a potential risk to the continuation of Social Security benefits, retirees and members of labour unions assembled in front of the courthouse.

“What is it we’re doing that needs all of that information?” In his statement, Hollander posed the question of whether or not the majority of the data could be anonymised, at least in the preliminary assessment phases.

It was stated by attorneys working for the Trump administration that altering the procedure would make their efforts more difficult.

Bradley Humphreys, an attorney for the Department of Justice, stated before the court that although anonymisation is feasible, it is a prohibitively difficult process.

It was his contention that the DOGE access does not considerably differ from the standard procedures that are followed inside the agency, which include granting workers and auditors the authority to scan its databases on a regular basis.

It is a “sea change” in terms of how the agency handles sensitive information, such as medical and mental health records, as well as other data pertaining to children and people with disabilities — “issues that are not only sensitive but might carry a stigma.” However, attorneys for the plaintiffs have described it as “unprecedented” and “a sea change.”

Alethea Anne Swift, an attorney with the legal services group Democracy Forward, which is the organisation that is sponsoring the action, stated that the access alone is an invasion of privacy that may cause injury to individuals who receive Social Security benefits.

“That intrusion causes an objectively reasonable unease,” according to her statement.

Ever since President Trump began his second term in office, the Social Security Administration has been experiencing a great deal of instability. Michelle King, who was serving as the agency’s acting commissioner at the time, resigned from her position in February when she refused to grant DOGE employees the access they desired.

After Hollander requested his presence to testify regarding recent activities involving DOGE, the White House substituted her with Leland Dudek, who did not show up for the hearing that took place on Tuesday. It was Hollander who requested his appearance. Dudek’s threats that he could have to shut down agency operations or withhold payments because of Hollander’s temporary restraining order were rebuked by the judge in a letter that was sent out the previous month when the judge issued the letter.

The instruction, according to her, “has no bearing on ordinary operations at SSA,” and it solely applies to personnel who are working on the DOGE agenda instead.

After issuing an order that would have compelled parents in Maine to register their infants for Social Security numbers at a federal office rather than at the hospital, Dudek has been subjected to calls for his resignation in recent weeks. An immediate reversal of the order was made. However, emails revealed that it was a political retaliation against Maine Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat who has faced opposition from the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent the state from receiving federal funding due to the presence of transgender athletes.

During the hearing that took place on Tuesday, Hollander reprimanded Humphreys for his suggestion that her questioning was beginning to “feel like a policy disagreement.” This was done in spite of the politically charged environment that surrounded the DOGE access issue.

“I do take offence at your comment because I’m just trying to understand the system,” the judge stated in his ruling.

Judge Hollander, who is 75 years old and was appointed to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama, is the most recent judge to take into consideration a matter that is associated with DOGE.

On Tuesday, a considerable number of her enquiries centred on the question of whether or not the Social Security case is materially different from another action in Maryland that challenges the Department of General Services’ access to data at three other agencies: the Education Department, the Treasury Department, and the Office of Personnel Management. Within the context of that particular case, a preliminary injunction was recently overturned by an appeals court, which made it possible for DOGE to once more access the private data of individuals.

There is also the possibility of appealing Hollander’s injunction to the 4th United States Circuit Court of Appeals. This court has previously ruled in favour of the Trump administration in other cases, such as granting DOGE access to the United States Agency for International Development and allowing executive orders that are against diversity, equity, and inclusion to proceed.

About The Author