Federal Judge Limits DOGE Access to Data Citing Violation of Trust

A federal judge has placed restrictions on the access of the Department of Government Efficiency to federal databases, highlighting what she termed a breach of law and trust.

The case emerged from a lawsuit filed in February by the American Federation of Government Employees. The lawsuit brought together current and former federal employees along with their unions, accusing the Office of Personnel Management and DOGE of infringing upon privacy rights.

The Ruling of Judge Denise Cote

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote from the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs on April 25. However, details surrounding the scope of this injunction will soon be outlined in a separate order.

In a comprehensive 99-page opinion, Cote articulated serious concerns regarding the conduct of OPM, particularly after the inauguration of President Trump. She noted that OPM had granted extensive access to various systems to individuals associated with DOGE, despite a lack of demonstrated need for such access. This action, as Cote stated, represented a violation of both legal protocols and established cybersecurity practices.

Sensitive Information at Stake

The judge’s ruling addressed the sensitive nature of the records involved. Cote emphasized that OPM’s records contain vital private information such as social security numbers, healthcare details, banking information, and family member data. She pointed out that unauthorized disclosure of such information could endanger individuals’ safety.

Implications for Personal Data

Cote, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, affirmed that the plaintiffs had shown sufficient grounds for a preliminary injunction. This ruling serves to prevent the release of OPM records to DOGE associates and mandates the destruction of any duplicates of personal data obtained improperly.

According to Cote, the defendants had unlawfully shared OPM records with individuals lacking any legitimate right to access such sensitive information. This constituted not only a breach of the Privacy Act but also a departure from the necessary cybersecurity standards that the defendants were mandated to uphold. Over 10 million Americans count on the government to protect their private and sensitive data.

Criticism of Government Protocols

In her ruling, Judge Cote criticized the approach taken by the Trump administration concerning OPM records. She argued that the government could have acknowledged and corrected mistakes made in the rush to execute a new president’s agenda. Instead, it defended its actions by falsely claiming adherence to established protocols.

A Call for Accountability

Cote expressed concern that unless the government recognizes the necessity of following laws and cybersecurity protocols, the potential for irreparable harm would continue to loom. This lack of acknowledgment places Americans’ personal data in jeopardy.

Department of Justice’s Position

During a May hearing, attorneys from the Justice Department suggested that any preliminary injunction should allow exceptions for high-level OPM officials. They cited instances where another judge had relaxed initial restrictions on DOGE’s access to Treasury Department records, provided that DOGE personnel received proper training and vetting.

On Friday, Justice Department lawyers submitted a separate motion in relation to this case, referencing a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning DOGE access to Social Security Administration records.

Future Uncertainties Surrounding DOGE

The future of DOGE appears uncertain amid public tensions involving its former leader Elon Musk and President Trump. Nevertheless, both figures have previously expressed their desire for the continuation of DOGE’s initiatives aimed at reducing government waste.

Recently, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration significant victories in cases related to DOGE, including the approval of access to Social Security systems that contain sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. Notably, dissent came from three liberal justices regarding these decisions.

Legal Ramifications for Records Access

The high court has also taken steps to limit orders demanding transparency from DOGE. One such ruling halted an order from a Maryland judge that previously restricted DOGE’s access to SSA data in compliance with federal privacy laws.

The Trump administration maintains that DOGE requires this access for effective operation while targeting waste within federal agencies. Meanwhile, Musk has emphasized Social Security as a critical area for fraud prevention, referring to it unfavorably as a Ponzi scheme and advocating for waste reduction as a path to lower government expenditure.

Despite this, U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland characterized DOGE’s attempts at oversight within the Social Security domain as a fishing expedition based largely on suspicion rather than concrete evidence of fraud. Allowing unrestricted access, she noted, poses a risk to the private information of Americans.

In her ruling, Hollander did allow some access to anonymized data for staff who had completed necessary training and background checks, or broader access for those presenting demonstrated needs. However, the Trump administration has countered that DOGE cannot operate effectively under these constraints.

Judicial Overreach Concerns

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer raised concerns that the Maryland ruling exemplifies federal judges overstepping their authority, potentially interfering with the executive branch’s administrative functions.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.