A U.S. federal judge has blocked DOGE staff from accessing Social Security Administration (SSA) data due to privacy violations. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander ruled that DOGE likely violated the Privacy Act of 1974 by failing to justify its access to sensitive Social Security records. She issued a temporary restraining order that requires DOGE associates to delete any personally identifiable information from SSA data. The judge also criticized the task force’s approach, calling it a “fishing expedition” and noting that it was based on mere suspicion with no concrete evidence of fraud.
The court ruling followed disclosures that DOGE staff had bypassed federal safeguards protecting sensitive information. Former SSA Acting Chief of Staff Tiffany Flick testified that DOGE advisors pressured officials to grant access to critical systems despite unresolved security clearance issues. Flick also revealed that DOGE staff disregarded necessary security protocols and demanded unrestricted access to sensitive financial data.
This led to Flick’s resignation in February after she insisted on maintaining strict “need to know” policies within the agency.
Recent lawsuits and filings have further exposed DOGE’s controversial activities, particularly in advancing Trump and Musk’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce. According to sworn testimony, DOGE staff violated security policies and sent unencrypted data to Trump officials, raising concerns about the security of sensitive government data. In a separate case, a Manhattan judge found that DOGE’s access to Treasury systems left the agency vulnerable to cyberattacks, making it susceptible to hacking.
These legal issues underscore the risks of DOGE’s operations and the disregard for security protocols.
Despite the ruling, the judge allowed DOGE staff continued access to redacted and anonymized Social Security data, provided they undergo proper background checks and training. Hollander criticized DOGE’s lack of justification for needing unrestricted access to SSA’s entire record system. She stated that the government failed to explain why a more targeted and measured approach was not appropriate for the task. This case highlights ongoing concerns about privacy, data security, and the oversight of federal agencies involved in sensitive information handling.
Reference:
