- Federal judge rules Musk’s team violated privacy laws accessing Social Security data.
- U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander halts further record sharing.
- The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was investigating fraud and waste.
- White House criticizes ruling, calling it an attack on government reforms.
- Advocacy groups hail the ruling as a victory for data privacy.
A federal judge has ruled that the Social Security Administration (SSA) likely violated privacy laws by granting Elon Musk’s aides extensive access to personal data. The decision, issued on Thursday by U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander in Maryland, blocks further sharing of sensitive records.
The judge found that Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was given “unbridled access” to millions of Americans’ personal data. The move was part of an initiative under former President Donald Trump aimed at identifying fraud and waste within the SSA.
“To be sure, rooting out possible fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the SSA is in the public interest. But, that does not mean that the government can flout the law to do so,” Hollander wrote in her ruling.
Access to ‘Crown Jewel’ Databases Raises Concerns
The case has exposed the vast amounts of personal information that DOGE members were able to access. Among the databases involved was Numident (Numerical Identification), often referred to as the SSA’s “crown jewels,” according to three former and current SSA employees who spoke to Reuters.
Numident contains records of every individual who has ever applied for or received a Social Security number since the agency’s establishment in the 1930s. It includes Social Security numbers, medical and mental health records, driver’s license details, bank account data, tax information, and birth and marriage records.
SSA attorneys acknowledged that DOGE had access to a “massive amount” of personal records. The judge noted that the DOGE team appeared to be conducting a “fishing expedition” in search of fraud without clear evidence.
White House Condemns Ruling
The White House reacted strongly to the ruling, with spokesperson Harrison Fields criticizing it as an attempt to undermine President Trump’s anti-waste initiatives. “This is yet another activist judge abusing the judicial system to try and sabotage the President’s attempts to rid the government of waste, fraud, and abuse,” Fields said in a statement.
On the other hand, advocacy groups that sued the SSA, Musk, and DOGE hailed the decision as a crucial step for data privacy. Democracy Forward, an advocacy group involved in the lawsuit, welcomed the ruling. “Today, the court did what accountability demands – forcing DOGE to delete every trace of the data it unlawfully accessed,” said Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward. “The court recognized the real and immediate dangers of DOGE’s reckless actions and took action to stop it.”
Implications for Data Security and Government Oversight
The lawsuit revealed that DOGE staffers were installed at the SSA without proper vetting or training. Consequently, the plaintiffs argued that the agency had been “ransacked” under Musk’s influence.
Moreover, Hollander emphasized that the DOGE team’s access to SSA data was granted without proper safeguards. She also pointed out that DOGE members were granted anonymity in court proceedings due to security concerns. “The defense does not appear to share a privacy concern for the millions of Americans whose SSA records were made available to the DOGE affiliates, without their consent,” she stated.
As a result, the ruling underscores ongoing concerns about government transparency and data security. Legal experts suggest that this case may, in turn, lead to stricter oversight of federal data-sharing policies.
Ultimately, the court’s decision highlights the risks of unchecked access to personal data within government institutions. While the fight against fraud is essential, this case clearly demonstrates the importance of safeguarding citizens’ privacy. In doing so, the ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving data security and government accountability.