A federal judge in Maryland has issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing citizens’ personal data from the Social Security Administration (SSA). The judge criticized the organization for conducting a “fishing expedition” in pursuit of alleged fraud, citing a lack of concrete evidence to justify such extensive data collection.
The ruling acknowledged that efforts to improve efficiency and reduce waste in federal agencies, including the SSA, may be commendable but emphasized that proper methods must be followed. The judge expressed concerns over the DOGE Team’s approach, describing it as a broad and unwarranted search for potential fraud without sufficient justification. The order allows DOGE employees to continue certain operations, such as system training, but restricts them from accessing personally identifiable information unless it has been anonymized and they have undergone standard training protocols.
In addition to limiting data access, the order requires DOGE to immediately delete any personally identifying information already obtained and to remove any software or code it may have installed or altered on SSA computer systems. The decision follows growing concerns over the organization’s role and its attempts to gain broad access to federal databases.
The judge pointed out that government attorneys failed to provide a meaningful explanation as to why DOGE needed unrestricted access to the SSA’s entire data system. The defense’s argument largely relied on general statements about investigating fraud, without detailing why such extensive access was necessary. The absence of testimony from DOGE experts or documentation explaining the need for such a sweeping approach further raised doubts about the legitimacy of the organization’s claims.
This lawsuit is one of several filed against DOGE since its creation, with national labor organizations and advocacy groups challenging its reach. The complaint argued that the administration’s actions violated privacy laws and placed millions of Americans’ personal data at risk. The legal challenge highlighted concerns over executive overreach and the lack of clear authority for DOGE to access sensitive information without safeguards.
The judge also criticized the secrecy surrounding DOGE’s personnel, noting the contradiction in protecting the privacy of its members while simultaneously seeking access to the private data of American citizens. The ruling underscored the disparity in privacy protections, stating that while DOGE members’ identities were being withheld to prevent potential harassment, no such concerns were extended to the millions of individuals whose data could have been exposed.
This decision represents a significant check on DOGE’s activities and raises broader questions about the balance between government oversight and the protection of citizens’ personal information. The case is expected to continue through the courts as further challenges to DOGE’s authority unfold.
