A U.S. federal judge on Thursday issued a ruling restricting access to Americans’ Social Security data by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), following concerns raised by unions over privacy and oversight.
District Judge Ellen Hollander’s order prohibits DOGE staff from viewing any personally identifiable information, including Social Security numbers, medical records, and financial data. Only redacted or anonymized records may be shared with DOGE, and only with personnel who have passed background checks and completed federal privacy training.
The ruling marks a significant legal blow to DOGE, a controversial entity created under President Donald Trump’s administration with the stated goal of eliminating government waste. Musk’s leadership of the office has drawn widespread criticism due to his unelected status and the sweeping powers granted to DOGE.
Thursday’s decision follows the resignation of Social Security Administration (SSA) chief Michelle King earlier this year, reportedly in protest over DOGE’s push for access to detailed Social Security recipient data.
The lawsuit was filed by several unions, including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), who accused the SSA of allowing DOGE “unauthorized” access to sensitive records. AFSCME hailed the court’s decision as a crucial win for privacy and accountability.
“Today’s decision provides significant relief and is essential in halting DOGE’s unlawful and dangerous overreach,” the union said in a statement.
In addition to restricting future access, the judge ordered DOGE staff to delete any non-anonymized Social Security data they have held since Trump took office in January.
Under the ruling, DOGE may only access personally identifiable Social Security information with express court approval—and even then, seeking the data merely to “search for fraud or waste” will not be considered a valid justification.
DOGE has faced growing scrutiny over its legal legitimacy, Musk’s potential conflicts of interest, and the office’s lack of public accountability. Critics warn that its expansive mandate threatens civil liberties and undermines democratic oversight.