A federal judge has intervened in the controversial actions of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), ordering a halt to their unrestricted access to the personal data of millions of Americans. U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander, presiding over the case in Maryland, ruled that the Social Security Administration (SSA) likely violated privacy laws by granting DOGE staff “unbridled access” to sensitive records, including personal details of the American public.
In her ruling, Judge Hollander emphasized that while rooting out fraud, waste, and inefficiency within the SSA is important, it cannot come at the cost of violating privacy laws. The decision is part of an ongoing legal dispute that has raised concerns about the scope of DOGE’s reach into federal systems and the amount of personal information Musk’s team has accessed in the hunt for fraud.
Musk’s DOGE team was tasked with identifying and eliminating wasteful spending in government agencies, but its methods have come under scrutiny. According to reports, the SSA had allowed at least 10 DOGE staffers unfettered access to some of the most sensitive records in the agency’s possession.
These records included the personal information of millions of individuals, many of whom were unaware that their data had been made accessible. The records in question are contained in various SSA databases, including the Numident system, which holds personal information about everyone who has ever been issued a Social Security number.
The case highlights the growing concerns about privacy in an era where government agencies, under the leadership of figures like Musk, have expanded their control over personal data. In her ruling, Judge Hollander acknowledged the need for efficiency in the government but stressed that there must be a balance between the pursuit of fraud and the protection of personal privacy.
"To be sure, rooting out possible fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the SSA is in the public interest. But that does not mean the government can flout the law to do so," Hollander said in her decision.
Musk’s team, which has been working under the banner of the Department of Government Efficiency, has sparked a larger debate over the role of government in managing sensitive personal data. The agency has already accessed information from at least 20 federal agencies, including Labor, Health and Human Services, and Energy.
However, its activities have been particularly controversial at the SSA, where the scope of the data access was so broad that it could encompass the entire agency. Leland Dudek, the acting head of the SSA, expressed concerns that the court's order might apply to all SSA employees.
"My anti-fraud team would be DOGE affiliates. My IT staff would be DOGE affiliates," Dudek said. "As it stands, I will follow it exactly and terminate access by all SSA employees to our IT systems."
The ruling marks a significant legal setback for DOGE, which has been pushing for expanded authority over federal agencies in the name of efficiency and cost-cutting. The court's decision also sheds light on the extent to which Musk’s team had access to personal data, with some critics accusing the government of handing over private information without adequate safeguards.
One of the most significant systems that DOGE accessed is the Numident database. Often referred to as the "crown jewels" of the SSA, Numident holds critical personal data on every American who has ever applied for or been issued a Social Security number.
This includes not only basic personal information but also detailed records about earnings, tax history, and other sensitive data. The system is considered highly confidential due to the sensitive nature of the data it holds, and its access has now become a focal point in the legal battle.
In the wake of the judge’s ruling, legal experts are questioning the motivations behind DOGE’s broad access to this data. The SSA has defended its actions by claiming that the decision to allow DOGE access was made to identify inefficiencies and waste in the agency’s processes.
However, critics have pointed out that the method used by DOGE appeared to be a “fishing expedition” based on little more than suspicion, with no concrete evidence to suggest that fraud or waste was widespread.
Judge Hollander expressed concerns about the scope of the data access, saying that it amounted to an invasive intrusion into the personal affairs of millions of Americans. “The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion,” she said.
“It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack.”
The ruling is not just a legal setback for Musk's team but also a broader reflection of the concerns over privacy and the unchecked power of government agencies in managing sensitive data. While Musk has argued that efforts to uncover fraud and waste are in the public interest, the court has made it clear that privacy laws must be respected in the process.
The case has drawn attention to the level of control that DOGE has been granted over federal data. Since January, the agency has accessed records from various other departments, though it has been blocked from accessing certain sensitive Treasury Department systems.
While DOGE’s goals of streamlining government operations and reducing waste are valid, the court's ruling serves as a reminder that these objectives cannot come at the expense of citizens' privacy rights.
Following the ruling, the advocacy group Democracy Forward celebrated the decision as an important victory for data privacy. "Today, the court did what accountability demands – forcing DOGE to delete every trace of the data it unlawfully accessed," said Skye Perryman, the group's president.
"The court recognized the real and immediate dangers of DOGE’s reckless actions and took action to stop it."
Musk and DOGE’s efforts to identify fraud have centered around claims that many people are fraudulently using the identities of deceased individuals to claim Social Security benefits. While it is true that SSA records contain the names of millions of deceased individuals dating back to the agency’s founding in the 1930s, SSA officials have stressed that simply having these names in the system does not mean the individuals are receiving benefits.
Despite the legal challenges, Musk’s team remains committed to finding ways to eliminate inefficiencies in the government. In a statement, the SSA highlighted that it had identified over $800 million in cost savings for the 2025 fiscal year as a result of its partnership with DOGE.
However, the ongoing legal battles over data access suggest that the agency's methods may need to be reevaluated in light of privacy concerns.
As the case continues to unfold, it raises important questions about the balance between government efficiency and privacy. The judge’s ruling underscores the need for careful consideration when dealing with sensitive data and serves as a reminder that the government must be transparent and accountable in its efforts to reform public agencies.
