A federal judge in Maryland has blocked the newly-formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing confidential personal data controlled by the Department of Education (DOE) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The ruling prohibits the agencies from disclosing personally identifying information to members of DOGE, citing potential violations of the Privacy Act of 1974.
The lawsuit, brought by unions and membership organizations representing federal employees and student aid recipients, argued that granting DOGE unauthorized access to sensitive personal information would invade privacy and increase the risk of identity theft. The contested data includes Social Security numbers, tax records, addresses, income details, and employment history.
The government contended that no “injury in fact” had occurred since the data had not been publicly released, but the court disagreed. The judge ruled that disclosure to unauthorized government employees is sufficient to constitute a violation. The order emphasized that DOGE affiliates, who had been granted access to personal records, could use the information to construct a detailed picture of individuals’ financial, familial, and professional affairs.
The government maintained that DOGE affiliates were employees of the DOE and OPM, and therefore, their access was within legal bounds. The judge acknowledged this possibility but focused on whether DOGE affiliates had a legitimate need for the information in performing their duties. While a “need-to-know” exception exists under the Privacy Act, it requires a clear justification for why an employee needs access to the protected data.
DOGE argued that its affiliates needed the information to conduct analyses on student loan repayment plans and debt discharges. However, the judge noted that the government failed to explain why DOGE required “such comprehensive, sweeping access” to conduct these audits. The court found no precedent involving the unauthorized disclosure of such a vast amount of records, reinforcing the conclusion that this level of access appeared to be unlawful.
Although the administration could later provide justification for DOGE’s access, the judge determined that, at this stage, there was no demonstrated need. While the plaintiffs sought to block DOGE’s access to all data within the system, the judge ruled that such a measure was too broad, limiting the restraining order to the plaintiffs’ private information.
DOGE, despite its title, is not a formal federal agency. It was created through an executive order to modernize government technology, cut federal jobs, and reduce spending. It operates under the Executive Office of the President, with its administrator reporting directly to the White House chief of staff.
The ruling follows a similar decision in New York, where another judge extended a preliminary injunction preventing DOGE from accessing Treasury Department payment systems.
