Photo credit: abcnews.go.com
BALTIMORE — A federal judge has instituted new limitations on the operations of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), specifically curtailing its access to Social Security systems that safeguard personal information for millions of Americans.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander issued a preliminary injunction in the case, initiated by labor unions and retirees alleging that DOGE’s recent activities infringe on privacy laws and pose significant security risks. Prior to this, Hollander had put in place a temporary restraining order.
Under the injunction, DOGE personnel are permitted to access de-identified data, which has been stripped of any personally identifiable information, contingent upon their completion of training and background checks.
Judge Hollander directed DOGE and its associated personnel to eliminate all non-anonymized Social Security data obtained since January 20. Furthermore, they are prohibited from modifying any computer code or software utilized by the Social Security Administration (SSA), required to uninstall any previously installed software, and barred from sharing any such code with others.
Hollander acknowledged the goal of reducing fraud, waste, and inefficiency as commendable, noting that the American public likely supports such an initiative. She stated, “Indeed, the taxpayers have every right to expect their government to make sure that their hard-earned money is not squandered.”
However, she emphasized that the concern is not with the aim, but rather the methodology employed by DOGE in achieving that aim.
Judge Hollander articulated a fundamental principle maintained by the SSA for nearly 90 years: the protection of privacy regarding its records. She expressed concern that the current case reveals a significant breach in that principle.
During a federal court proceeding on Tuesday in Baltimore, Hollander sought to understand why DOGE requires what she described as “seemingly unfettered access” to sensitive personal information from the SSA to combat fraud.
Outside the courthouse, protests from union members and retirees echoed the sentiment that DOGE’s actions jeopardize the future of Social Security benefits.
“What is it we’re doing that needs all of that information?” she questioned, proposing whether much of the data could at least be anonymized in the initial analysis stages.
Legal representatives for the Trump administration argued that altering the process would hinder their efforts. Justice Department attorney Bradley Humphreys noted that while anonymization is feasible, it would be associated with significant burden.
He contended that DOGE’s access to data aligns closely with standard agency practices, where employees and auditors frequently search internal databases.
Conversely, attorneys for the plaintiffs deemed the access a radical shift in the agency’s approach to managing sensitive data, including health-related records and information regarding children and individuals with disabilities—matters that hold substantial sensitivity and potential stigmatization.
Alethea Anne Swift, an attorney with Democracy Forward, one of the entities behind the lawsuit, asserted that such access represents a violation of privacy, causing real harm to Social Security recipients. “That intrusion causes an objectively reasonable unease,” she remarked.
The SSA has faced significant challenges since President Donald Trump’s second term began. Notably, in February, acting commissioner Michelle King resigned after declining to grant the access that DOGE requested.
The White House subsequently appointed Leland Dudek to the role, who did not appear at Tuesday’s hearing despite Hollander’s request for his testimony on recent DOGE-related efforts. The judge previously criticized Dudek for threatening to halt agency operations or suspend payments due to the temporary restraining order.
Hollander clarified that her order pertains only to DOGE-affiliated workers and does not restrict SSA staff who are not involved with DOGE. These SSA employees can continue to access necessary data as part of their regular responsibilities. However, DOGE staff needing access to anonymized data must first complete the required training and security clearances typical for SSA employees.
Recently, Dudek faced calls for resignation following a controversial directive that demanded newborns in Maine be registered for Social Security numbers at federal offices instead of hospitals—an order that was quickly revoked. Subsequent emails suggested this was a retaliatory measure against Maine Governor Janet Mills for her opposition to federal funding cuts related to transgender athletes.
Even amid the tense political climate surrounding the DOGE access situation, Hollander challenged Humphreys when he indicated that her queries seemed to reflect policy disputes. “I do take offense at your comment because I’m just trying to understand the system,” she countered during Tuesday’s proceedings.
Judge Hollander, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, joins a growing list of judges dealing with cases involving DOGE.
Her inquiries on Tuesday delved into whether the current Social Security case significantly differs from another ongoing Maryland case that challenges DOGE’s access to data across three additional agencies: the Education Department, the Treasury Department, and the Office of Personnel Management. In a recent ruling, an appeals court blocked a preliminary injunction, permitting DOGE to resume accessing personal data.
Hollander’s injunction may be subject to appeal at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has previously sided with the Trump administration in other matters, including allowing DOGE access to the U.S. Agency for International Development and moving forward with executive orders concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Source
abcnews.go.com