Access to the Department of Government Efficiency’s federal database has been limited by federal judges, citing “violations of law and trust.” In February, current and former federal employees, along with their union, the Federation of US Government Employees, filed a lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and DOGE, alleging privacy breaches.
On April 25, US District Judge Dennis Court of the Southern District of New York granted a provisional injunction, although he noted that a further order would clarify its scope. Following President Trump’s inauguration, the OPM had allowed broad access to certain individuals linked to government efficiency, but the justification for this access hasn’t been convincingly demonstrated, leading to potential breaches of cybersecurity practices.
The opinion emphasized that the OPM records in question contain sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers and healthcare details. Revealing such information could endanger individuals’ safety. Judge Cote, appointed by President Bill Clinton, emphasized the significance of the “tentative injunction,” which stops the release of OPM data to DOGE-related individuals and mandates the destruction of any improperly obtained personal records.
Cote criticized the Trump administration’s management of OPM records, arguing that while the government claimed adherence to established protocols, there was evidence to the contrary. “Without full awareness of required legal and cybersecurity standards, the risk of irreparable harm remains,” he wrote.
During a recent hearing, Justice Department lawyers requested that the injunction allow exceptions for high-level OPM personnel, referencing concerns that strict restrictions could hinder DOGE’s ability to accomplish its goals. In related developments, Justice Department lawyers filed a fresh complaint regarding the Supreme Court’s recent ruling about DOGE access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records.
The situation involving DOGE continues to evolve amidst tensions between influential figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump. The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the Trump administration, granting access to Social Security records, which contain sensitive data for numerous Americans, although dissent from three liberal justices was recorded.
Separately, a Maryland judge had criticized DOGE’s attempts to access Social Security data, labeling its actions a “fishing expedition” based on mere suspicions. She ultimately allowed limited access to anonymized data for personnel who have appropriate training and background checks. The Trump administration maintains that without broader access, DOGE can’t fulfill its mandate effectively.
US Attorney General John Sauer voiced concerns that recent rulings aim to undermine the authority of administrative agencies.
