BALTIMORE, Md. – In a new development on Thursday, a federal judge placed additional limits on the access that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, comes in response to a lawsuit brought by labor unions and retirees alleging that DOGE’s recent actions breach privacy laws and pose significant information security risks. This decision follows an earlier temporary restraining order issued by Hollander.
The preliminary injunction imposed by Hollander requires DOGE to only access data that has been redacted or stripped of any personally identifiable information, provided that DOGE staffers undergo training and background checks. Additionally, the judge mandated that any non-anonymized Social Security data received by DOGE since Jan. 20 must be purged, and they are barred from altering any computer code or software used by the Social Security Administration.
Judge Hollander acknowledged the importance of addressing fraud, waste, and mismanagement, but emphasized the need to maintain privacy standards when handling sensitive personal data. This case has raised concerns about the erosion of privacy expectations within the Social Security Administration, a cornerstone principle that has guided the agency for nearly a century.
During a court hearing in Baltimore, Judge Hollander questioned the necessity of granting DOGE unrestricted access to the agency’s databases in their efforts to combat Social Security fraud. Union members and retirees voiced their opposition to DOGE’s actions, fearing the implications for the future of Social Security benefits. The lawsuit highlights the unprecedented access that DOGE seeks and the potential risks posed by handling sensitive information like medical records and data related to vulnerable populations.
Despite arguments from the Trump administration’s attorneys that granting DOGE access aligns with standard agency practices, critics argue that the level of access sought by DOGE represents a concerning departure from established protocols. Advocates, like Alethea Anne Swift from Democracy Forward, argue that the intrusion on Social Security recipients’ privacy causes reasonable unease and potential harm.
The political context surrounding DOGE’s activities has added complexity to the case, with Judge Hollander admonishing attempts to minimize her inquiries as mere policy disagreements. As the legal battle continues, the implications of the injunction on DOGE’s data access could have broader ramifications for government agencies and privacy protections. The case may potentially be appealed to a higher court, adding another layer of scrutiny to the government’s handling of sensitive personal data.