Share and Follow
President Donald Trump listens as Elon Musk speaks during a campaign rally at the Butler Farm Show, Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Butler, Pa. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File).
A federal judge in Maryland blocked the Trump administration’s newly-formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by tech billionaire Elon Musk, from accessing the confidential personal data controlled by the Department of Education (DOE) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman on Monday issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the agencies from disclosing personal identifying information to members of Musk’s team, reasoning that the administration granting DOGE “sweeping access to their systems of records containing sensitive and personal data” violated the Privacy Act of 1974.
The information at the heart of the litigation included private information such as social security numbers, tax information, income, addresses, and birth dates.
The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of unions and membership organizations representing current and former federal employees and federal student aid recipients. The plaintiffs argued that granting DOGE unauthorized access to their sensitive personal information invades their privacy and leaves them at greater risk of identity theft.
The government argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege an “injury in fact” because the personal data at issue had not been “publicly disclosed,” but Boardman disagreed, writing that “disclosure to unauthorized government employees suffices.”
“The plaintiffs allege that Education and OPM have granted DOGE affiliates unauthorized access to their sensitive personal information,” she wrote in the 33-page order. “The information includes bank account numbers; Social Security numbers; dates of birth; physical and email addresses; disability status; income and asset information; marital status; demographic information; employment records such as performance appraisals and personnel actions; and information about family members, such as their financial status, dates of birth, and addresses. The DOGE affiliates who have been granted unauthorized access to the plaintiffs’ records at OPM and Education could use the information available to them to create a comprehensive picture of the plaintiffs’ familial, professional, or financial affairs.”
According to Boardman, a Joe Biden appointee, the plaintiffs maintain a privacy interest in restricting access of their personal information to only those government employees with proper authority.
The government asserted that the DOGE affiliates seeking access to the data are employees of the Education Department and OPM. The court presumed as much for the purpose of deciding on the restraining order, but said the question then becomes “whether the DOGE affiliates have a need for the record in the performance of their duties.”
A “need-to-know exception” to the Privacy Act could be applicable, the court said, but such an exception requires an explanation as to why an employee needs access to the protected information in their professional role.
At the Education Department, DOGE in court documents stated that its affiliates planned on accessing the confidential information to “conduct[] analyses to estimate costs related to student loan repayment plans, awards, or debt discharges.” But Boardman emphasized that the government failed to explain “why” DOGE would need “such comprehensive, sweeping access to plaintiffs’ records” for the purpose of auditing student loan programs for waste, fraud, and abuse.
“There appears to be no precedent with similar facts,” Boardman wrote. “In other Privacy Act cases where the need-to-know exception is invoked, the dispute typically involves the alleged unauthorized disclosure of one record. This case involves the alleged unauthorized disclosure of millions of records. Even under existing precedent, this appears to be unlawful. At this stage, the record does not indicate that DOGE affiliates at Education need access to the plaintiffs’ [personally identifying information] to perform their jobs.”
The judge said that in time, the administration may be able to explain why it needs to grant DOGE expansive access, but said that for now, “the records before the Court indicates they do not have a need for these records in the performance of their duties.”
While the plaintiffs sought to bar DOGE from accessing the personal data of anyone in the system, Boardman said such relief was “way too broad” and limited the TRO to include only the private information of the plaintiffs.
Despite its title, DOGE is not an actual federal government department. Rather, it is a “temporary organization” formed by Trump via executive order tasked with “modernizing federal technology and software to maximize efficiency and productivity” by reducing the number of federal workers and cutting spending. The organization is established under the Executive Office of the President and its yet-to-be-named administrator will report to the White House chief of staff.
Boardman’s order comes after U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, also a Biden appointee, in New York on Friday extended a preliminary injunction barring DOGE from accessing the payment systems maintained by the Treasury Department.
