A recent decision by Judge Ellen Hollander of the U.S. District Court has signaled a significant shift in the handling of Americans' private data by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). On Thursday, a preliminary injunction was issued, effectively restricting DOGE staff from accessing individuals' Social Security data unless it is anonymized or redacted. Furthermore, DOGE employees will be subjected to rigorous background checks and stringent training protocols before any data access is granted.
The lawsuit, which led to this injunction, was initiated by labor unions and a progressive legal organization, Democracy Forward. These groups have raised concerns that DOGE's activities could potentially undermine the privacy rights and security of American citizens. Historically, these same entities have opposed measures that could increase scrutiny of government programs, citing risks to corruption and inefficiency exposure.
Tensions were palpable during a court hearing in Baltimore earlier in the week, where Judge Hollander openly questioned the necessity for DOGE to have extensive access to personal data in its efforts to combat fraud. As reported by CBS News, she inquired from the bench, "What is it we’re doing that needs all of that information?"
In defense of DOGE's practices, Justice Department attorney Bradley Humphreys argued before the court that the concerns were exaggerated. He emphasized that the type of data access in question is a common practice for auditors across various federal agencies, although admitting that data anonymization is feasible but extremely burdensome.
Alethea Anne Swift, an attorney with Democracy Forward, countered the government's position by highlighting the unprecedented nature of the access DOGE sought, which included medical records and sensitive information on minors and the disabled. Swift expressed that even limited access to such data could lead to "an objectively reasonable unease" among recipients of Social Security benefits.
The debate comes amidst heightened scrutiny of the Social Security Administration following the resignation of Acting Commissioner Michelle King, who had opposed DOGE's approach. She was replaced by Leland Dudek, a staunch supporter of Elon Musk's efficiency-driven agenda. Dudek was expected to testify at the hearing but did not show up, further complicating the matter.
In the backdrop of these legal battles, the Trump administration has been pushing for reforms that have met with resistance, including a failed attempt to change the registration process for Social Security numbers in Maine. The move was seen as a political maneuver against Governor Janet Mills’ stance on transgender athletes.
Despite the politically charged atmosphere, Judge Hollander, an Obama-era appointee, dismissed notions of bias in her questioning, underscoring her objective to understand the system's workings. As DOGE faces continued legal challenges, the outcome of this case remains uncertain, especially given the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' record of ruling in favor of DOGE in related cases.
