“Alarming Move by Elon Musk’s DOGE Sparks Backlash as Judge Shuts Down Access to Social Security Information”

A federal judge has imposed new restrictions on Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), limiting its access to Social Security Administration (SSA) data.

This decision follows concerns about privacy, data security, and the legality of DOGE’s operations within federal agencies.

The preliminary injunction, issued by Judge Ellen Hollander in Baltimore, allows DOGE personnel to access only anonymized SSA data after undergoing background checks and training.

The judge also ordered the purging of non-anonymized data obtained since January 20 and prohibited any tampering with or dissemination of SSA software or code.

Critics argue that DOGE’s access to sensitive information, including Social Security numbers and medical records, poses significant risks to Americans’ privacy.

Representative Gerald Connolly, a ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, expressed concerns about DOGE’s impact on the SSA, citing reckless changes that jeopardize privacy, cybersecurity, and access to benefits.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) has filed a lawsuit to restrict DOGE’s access, citing violations of the Privacy Act and other laws.

The preliminary injunction halts DOGE personnel from accessing SSA data without complying with certain legal requirements while the broader lawsuit moves forward.

DOGE, established under the Trump administration, has faced criticism for its aggressive approach to reducing federal workforce and accessing sensitive data across multiple agencies.

Elon Musk, leading the initiative, has made unsubstantiated claims about widespread fraud in Social Security payments, which have been refuted by experts.

The SSA has experienced leadership changes amid the controversy, with Acting Commissioner Michelle King resigning after refusing DOGE access to sensitive beneficiary information.

She was succeeded by Leland Dudek, raising further concerns about the agency’s direction under DOGE’s influence.

As legal challenges continue, the future of DOGE’s operations and its access to federal data remains uncertain.

The case underscores the ongoing debate over privacy, government efficiency, and the balance of power within federal agencies.