A U.S. federal judge on Thursday issued a ruling limiting access to Americans’ personal Social Security data by Elon Musk’s controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), following a legal challenge brought by unions over privacy and oversight concerns.
District Judge Ellen Hollander barred DOGE personnel from obtaining data that could personally identify individuals—such as Social Security numbers, medical histories, or banking information—citing the need to safeguard citizens’ privacy.
Under the ruling, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is permitted to release only redacted or anonymized records to DOGE employees. Those employees must first undergo background checks and complete training on federal privacy laws and regulations.
The decision marks the latest legal pushback against DOGE’s sweeping efforts to cut what it deems bureaucratic waste, in alignment with President Donald Trump’s cost-cutting agenda. DOGE, an initiative spearheaded by Musk despite his unelected status, has faced mounting scrutiny over its role and reach within the federal bureaucracy.
SSA Commissioner Michelle King reportedly resigned in February, citing tensions over DOGE’s demands for access to sensitive Social Security data. The current case was brought by a coalition of unions who alleged that the agency had improperly allowed unauthorized DOGE personnel into its data systems, compromising the privacy of millions of Americans.
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), one of the unions involved, welcomed the ruling.
“Today’s decision provides significant relief and is essential in halting DOGE’s unlawful and dangerous overreach,” AFSCME said in a statement.
In addition to the access restrictions, Judge Hollander ordered DOGE to delete any non-anonymized Social Security data it has acquired since President Trump assumed office in January.
Future access to personally identifiable Social Security information will require specific court approval, and generalized goals such as “searching for fraud or waste” will not suffice as justification.
DOGE, which has drawn criticism over its vague legal authority and Musk’s dual roles in the private and public sectors, remains a flashpoint for debates over transparency, accountability, and executive overreach.
