Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s DOGE from Accessing Sensitive Records
In a significant legal development, a federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order preventing certain government agencies from sharing sensitive records with President Donald Trump’s controversial “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE. This decision comes as a response to a lawsuit filed by several labor unions, who argued that the data sharing violates the Privacy Act of 1974. The order effectively halts the transfer of personal information, including Social Security numbers and bank account details, to DOGE, which is spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk. This ruling is a major setback for DOGE’s efforts to access sensitive data as part of its broader mission to streamline government operations, which critics argue could lead to mass layoffs, agency closures, and unilateral changes to federal contracts.
Labor Unions File Lawsuit to Protect Federal Workers and Data Privacy
The lawsuit was filed earlier this month by a coalition of labor unions, including the American Federation of Teachers, against the U.S. Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The unions sought to prevent these agencies from handing over sensitive records to DOGE, which they alleged was planning to use the data for purposes such as firing federal workers, terminating contracts, and closing agencies. The plaintiffs argued that sharing this information without consent would violate the Privacy Act, a federal law that protects individuals’ personal information held by government agencies. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, an appointee of President Joe Biden, agreed with the unions, stating that they had demonstrated a likelihood of success in their claims and that the government’s actions likely violated the Privacy Act.
Judge Rules Government Likely Violated Privacy Act
In her ruling, Judge Boardman emphasized that the plaintiffs had shown clear evidence that the Education Department and OPM had disclosed personal information to DOGE affiliates without proper consent. This, she reasoned, constituted a violation of the Privacy Act. The sensitive records in question include Social Security numbers, bank account information, and other highly personal data belonging to millions of Americans, including veterans receiving benefits, federal employees, and borrowers under federal student loan programs. Boardman also noted that the plaintiffs, which included individual veterans, would suffer “irreparable harm” if DOGE’s access to this data was not blocked while the lawsuit proceeds. Her decision effectively erects a legal barrier between DOGE and the sensitive records it sought to access.
DOGE’s Data Access Sparks Broader Concerns About Privacy and Power
The lawsuit is part of a growing wave of legal challenges aimed at curbing DOGE’s influence within the federal bureaucracy. DOGE, a White House initiative led by Elon Musk, has been at the center of controversy since its inception. Its mission to streamline government operations has raised alarms among labor unions, veterans, and privacy advocates, who fear that DOGE’s access to sensitive data could be misused for political or arbitrary purposes, such as targeting specific groups or justifying mass layoffs. Judge Boardman’s ruling highlights the broader concerns about how DOGE’s activities could undermine privacy protections and destabilize the federal workforce.
Federal Judge’s Order Part of a Larger Legal Battle Against DOGE
This lawsuit is just one of several legal challenges aimed at slowing DOGE’s efforts to consolidate power and reshape the federal government. Last week, a federal judge in New York extended a separate order preventing DOGE from accessing Treasury Department systems that manage Social Security and Medicare disbursements, as well as payments to federal contractors. These legal victories for privacy advocates and labor unions signal a growing resistance to DOGE’s agenda, which critics argue lacks transparency and accountability. For now, Judge Boardman’s ruling in the Education Department case has created a crucial “firewall” between DOGE and the sensitive records of millions of Americans, at least temporarily halting what many see as an overreach of executive authority.
Implications of the Ruling and the Ongoing Battle Over Government Data
The implications of Judge Boardman’s ruling extend far beyond the immediate legal victory for the plaintiffs. It underscores the importance of safeguarding personal information in an era where government data collection is increasingly expansive and vulnerable to misuse. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the unions that brought the lawsuit, expressed the stakes clearly: “When people give their financial and other personal information to the federal government—to secure financial aid for their kids, to get a student loan—they expect that data to be protected and used for the reasons it was intended, not appropriated for other means.” This case serves as a reminder of the ongoing tension between government efficiency and individual privacy, and the role of the judiciary in balancing these competing interests. As the legal battle over DOGE’s activities continues, the outcome will have far-reaching consequences for federal workers, veterans, and anyone whose personal information is held by the government.
