A federal judge in Maryland has temporarily restrained Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing personal data held by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The decision came after a ruling from U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander on March 20, 2025, who described DOGE’s actions as a "fishing expedition" fueled by mere suspicions rather than solid evidence.
The lawsuit, initiated last month by a coalition of labor unions and advocacy groups, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Democracy Forward, claimed that DOGE’s access to sensitive data violated privacy laws, including the Privacy Act. The groups argued that the investigation into alleged fraud did not justify the invasive access to the agency's extensive records.
In her scathing 137-page ruling, Judge Hollander emphasized that the DOGE Team was effectively searching for a "needle in the haystack" without any clear indication that such a needle even existed. Her order not only prevents DOGE from accessing personally identifiable information but also mandates the destruction of any such data already in their possession.
The ruling notes that the previous administration did not sufficiently justify the need for DOGE's extensive access, classifying it as unnecessary and hazardous given the potential exposure of sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers, medical records, and financial data.
“The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion,” Judge Hollander wrote, indicating that even if rooting out fraud is in the public interest, the government cannot play fast and loose with people’s personal data.
The lawsuit highlighted fears about the security of sensitive information, with concerns raised that the DOGE had been granted broad access to systems that ought to be restricted. This information is vital for millions of Americans, and any breach could have severe implications for their privacy and security.
Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME, described the ruling as a “major win for working people and retirees across the country,” arguing that it protects their privacy rights. He stated, “The court saw that Elon Musk and his unqualified lackeys present a grave danger to Social Security and have illegally accessed the data of millions of Americans.”
The order also highlights the irony of DOGE employees needing to conceal their own identities due to privacy concerns, contrasting sharply with the lack of care exhibited towards the privacy of SSA recipients.
Despite the temporary restraining order, the ruling allows DOGE staff to access anonymized data for research purposes, provided they undergo appropriate training and background checks.
This decision sheds light on a broader context where attempts to modernize systems in government agencies can oftentimes lead to lapses in privacy protocols. “The defense does not appear to share a privacy concern for the millions of Americans whose SSA records were made available to the DOGE affiliates, without their consent,” the judge remarked.
In the aftermath of the decision, government officials expressed concern over the implications. The White House did not immediately comment, but a representative noted that they were reviewing the order.
The ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battles over DOGE’s reach and its approach to cutting what it describes as waste in federal operations. The agency has faced scrutiny over its techniques and methods, with critics alleging that its approach is too aggressive and lacking in transparency.
Further complicating matters, reports from different sectors indicate that the agency has sought access to data from other government departments, leading to mounting legal challenges. The recent court ruling underscores the necessity for a judicial check on the agency's authority.
In a statement following the ruling, Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, expressed gratitude towards the court for its strong stance on protecting personal data. He recognized the critical role that trust plays in ensuring that retirees feel safeguarded with their information.
As this story develops, it will be essential to watch how the government responds to this ruling and what changes, if any, will be implemented by DOGE in its approach going forward. Moreover, it raises broader questions about data privacy, the balance between efficiency in government, and the rights of citizens when it comes to their personal information.
The judicial restraint reflects public sentiment about the importance of protecting personal data. The rise of technology has not obstructed the need for privacy, and how agencies handle sensitive information reveals much about their commitment to uphold the trust placed in them by citizens.
Ultimately, this ruling serves as a cautionary tale about overreach—reminding government operatives that with great power comes significant responsibility to protect the privacy and rights of everyday Americans.
