US court grants DOGE access to millions of Americans’ data amid privacy fears
Washington: The Trump administration secured two significant wins at the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday in cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a controversial body formerly led by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk. The rulings bolster the administration’s efforts to streamline government operations but raise sharp concerns over privacy and transparency.
In the most high-profile case, the court’s conservative majority granted DOGE access to sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) systems, which contain personal data on nearly all Americans -- including school records, salary history, and medical information. The ruling overrides a lower court’s order that had restricted such access due to concerns under federal privacy laws.
The court’s unsigned order stated that DOGE may continue to access the SSA records “in order for those members to do their work,” effectively allowing the administration to push forward with its agenda to identify and reduce alleged waste within the Social Security system.
Three liberal justices -- Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan -- dissented. Justice Jackson issued a stern warning, writing that the decision created “grave privacy risks” by granting “unfettered data access to DOGE despite its failure to show any need or interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards.”
DOGE, which emerged as a central part of Trump’s federal cost-cutting strategy, has been the subject of intense legal scrutiny. The programme’s future remains uncertain following Musk’s departure from Washington and his public fallout with the president, which has included political threats and calls for impeachment.
In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had previously found DOGE’s demands for SSA access amounted to a “fishing expedition” based on unproven suspicions of fraud. Her ruling permitted limited, anonymised access for vetted staffers or broader access under stricter conditions. The Trump administration argued that these limitations made DOGE’s work unfeasible.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that the ruling reflected judicial overreach and hindered the executive branch’s ability to manage federal departments effectively. The plaintiffs – a coalition of labour unions and retirees backed by advocacy group Democracy Forward -- countered that the limits were urgently needed to protect Americans’ data.
Reacting to the decision, the plaintiffs described the ruling as “a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,” saying that even with Musk gone, “his impact continues to harm.”
White House spokesperson Liz Huston, meanwhile, hailed the verdict as “a huge victory for the rule of law” and a step forward in “modernising government systems to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.”
In a second, related ruling, the Supreme Court also sided with the Trump administration by pausing a transparency order that would have required DOGE to disclose internal documents to a government watchdog group.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had argued that DOGE, given its sweeping influence, functions as a federal agency and should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The administration contends DOGE is merely a presidential advisory body and exempt from such transparency requirements.
The justices did not settle that dispute but criticised U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper for issuing an overly broad disclosure order. The case will now proceed in lower courts, with the question of DOGE’s classification under FOIA yet to be definitively resolved.
DOGE has already faced more than two dozen lawsuits tied to its aggressive streamlining efforts, including mass layoffs and programme cuts across various federal agencies.