Share and Follow
Republican presidential nominee former 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).
New York Attorney General Letitia James is celebrating a quick victory against the Trump administration and the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) in a lawsuit filed late Friday.
Leading a 19-state coalition, the Empire State Democrat sued the federal government to stop a group of special employees, led by Elon Musk, from accessing sensitive Treasury Department data.
Mere hours after the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs secured a temporary restraining order that was granted blocking such access – and then some.
On top of being prohibited from accessing “any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees,” the Musk-aligned employees must also “destroy” any copies of documents previously downloaded, according to the court order.
“From the moment Elon Musk and his DOGE employees gained unprecedented access to our personal private data, state bank account details, and other sensitive information, Americans across the country have been horrified,” James said in a statement. “We knew the Trump administration’s choice to give this access to unauthorized individuals was illegal, and this morning, a federal court agreed.”
Despite its title, DOGE is not a department in the federal government. Rather, it is a “temporary organization” formed by President Donald Trump in an 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 part of the Executive Office of the President and its administrator reports to the White House chief of staff.
Earlier this month, DOGE employees were granted access to a payments system used by Treasury.
This system, the Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) is responsible for disbursing a massive amount of federal funds, including “social security benefits, veteran’s benefits, childcare tax credits, federal employee wages, and federal tax refunds,” the lawsuit notes.
An uproar and a spate of questions ensued as to why DOGE was being given direct access to the system.
The plaintiffs surmised political retribution was one reason.
“Upon information and belief, one purpose is to allow DOGE to advance a stated goal to block federal funds from reaching beneficiaries who do not align with the President’s political agenda,” the lawsuit reads.
The filing details the extent to which the relevant data is considered sensitive and previous efforts to keep the data under wraps:
The payment files, which are uploaded to BFS’s payment systems, contain a variety of sensitive personally identifiable information (“PII”), including social security and bank account numbers, as well as confidential financial information about the amount and type of payment being made…
Until several days ago, consistent with laws and regulations governing the collection, storage, handling, and disclosure of PII, only a limited number of career civil servants employed at BFS with appropriate security clearance had access to the BFS payment systems – access necessary for them to perform their job function of ensuring BFS operates securely as intended when disbursing the federal dollars appropriated by Congress to the States and their residents.
The calculus, of course, shifted when DOGE was allowed into the system by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
The temporary employees, for their part, claimed they wanted access to the sensitive data in order to conduct “a review” of the system itself.
The states, however, contend this excuse is subterfuge and, instead, that DOGE wanted access to the payments system in order to be able to control certain payments. This state of affairs, the plaintiffs say, will cause irreparable harm.
In short order, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer agreed with New York and the other state plaintiffs.
“The Court’s firm assessment is that, for the reasons stated by the States, they will face irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief,” the temporary restraining order reads. “That is both because of the risk that the new policy presents of the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking.”
A hearing on the staying power of the court’s order is slated for Valentine’s Day at 2 p.m. in lower Manhattan.
James welcomed the pause effusively.
“I have said it before, and I will say it again: no one is above the law,” she said. “Now, Americans can trust that Musk – the world’s richest man – and his friends will not have free rein over their personal information while our lawsuit proceeds.”
