Federal judge blocks DOGE representatives from accessing sensitive data of 2 million plaintiffs

(CN) — A federal judge in Maryland on Monday indefinitely blocked the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing the sensitive personal data of about 2 million union members, student loan recipients and veterans.

U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman ordered that the Department of Education, Department of the Treasury and Office of Personnel Management cease in divulging personally identifiable information to DOGE representatives.

Those three agencies, she wrote, had already “likely violated” the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act by granting DOGE affiliates sweeping access to systems containing plaintiffs’ banking information, social security numbers and other sensitive data.

“No matter how important or urgent the President’s DOGE agenda may be, federal agencies must execute it in accordance with the law,” Boardman wrote. “That likely did not happen in this case.”

The decision indefinitely extends Boardman’s previous temporary restraining order issued Feb. 24.

The plaintiffs — composed of trade unions, student loan recipients and U.S. veterans — asserted that DOGE’s “unrestricted" access to their personal information has caused them “major distress and anxiety” over whether their data could be weaponized against them or released in a privacy breach.

They also claimed that the agencies’ unapproved sharing of their data to DOGE affiliates violated the Privacy Act, a 1974 act limiting the distribution of personally identifiable information within federal agencies.

Defending in court their dissemination of the plaintiffs’ information, the government suggested such data was necessary for the DOGE affiliates to perform their legal duties.

Boardman pushed back on this assertion in her opinion, quoting a 2014 federal court decision affirming that granting agency-wide distribution of sensitive data without explanation “would allow the exception to swallow the rule.”

“Here, the need-to-know exception has been invoked to defend the disclosure of millions of records,” Boardman added. “There appears to be no precedent with similar facts. However, even under existing precedent, the agencies’ disclosures likely violate the Privacy Act.”

Boardman noted that President Donald Trump’s executive order establishing DOGE states that the department’s purpose is to modernize federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency.

“The DOGE Executive Order does not explain why DOGE affiliates at [any federal agency] need access to ‘all unclassified IT systems and data’ to modernize technology and software,” Boardman wrote.

During a preliminary hearing, the government suggested to Boardman that the job descriptions of DOGE affiliates in the Education Department provide additional context that would require them access to Privacy Act-protected records. However, Boardman noted in her opinion, such written duties consist of “a wide range of IT services” and “research duties.”

“None of these myriad job duties explain why the person performing them has a need for records with [personally identifiable information],” Boardman wrote.

Knowing that such arguments would likely be found insufficient, Boardman asserted, the government seemingly “created out of whole cloth” additional employee responsibilities to audit contracts, grants and other programs for waste, fraud and abuse. Still, Boardman said, such duties do not fall in line with the president’s written aims for DOGE.

“The DOGE Executive Order does not mention waste, fraud and abuse, and it certainly does not mention auditing student loan programs," Boardman wrote.

In defense of DOGE affiliates’ access to sensitive personal data in the Office of Personnel Management and Treasury Department, the government suggested such information is necessary for DOGE to modernize technology within the agencies.

However, as Boardman noted in her opinion, no government official could provide an explanation for this assertion in court.

Follow @JacksonHeals