US Judge Extends Ban on Elon Musk's DOGE Access to Social Security Data Amid Privacy Concerns

A federal judge has extended a ban on Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) databases containing sensitive personal data of millions of Americans. The ruling, issued Thursday by U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland, has escalated concerns over data privacy, government overreach, and the potential misuse of public information.

Judge Hollander’s preliminary injunction replaces a temporary restraining order she had previously issued last month, which was set to expire this week. With the new ruling in place, DOGE staffers are barred from obtaining any private data from the SSA while the lawsuit brought by labor unions and advocacy groups proceeds.

DOGE, a controversial federal unit led by Elon Musk and created under the banner of improving government efficiency, has come under intense scrutiny for attempting to access what Hollander described as “unprecedented, unfettered access” to SSA’s confidential systems. According to the judge, DOGE failed to justify why such expansive access was necessary for rooting out fraud — the department's stated mission.

“This is a significant relief for the millions of people who depend on the Social Security Administration to safeguard their most personal and sensitive information,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, one of the plaintiffs in the case. The advocacy group joined forces with two labor unions in February to challenge DOGE’s access to SSA systems, alleging violations of privacy laws.

Judge Hollander, an Obama-era appointee, noted in her 145-page ruling that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving that DOGE's attempts to gain access to SSA data violated federal privacy statutes. She emphasized the principle that has guided SSA for nearly a century: an expectation of privacy regarding citizens’ records.

“For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records. This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation,” Hollander wrote, underscoring the seriousness of the breach.

The court acknowledged that while DOGE staffers are prohibited from accessing data containing personal identifiers, they may still access de-identified data — provided they undergo proper training and pass federal background checks. This conditional access reflects a compromise between data analysis for efficiency and the preservation of public privacy rights.

During the Tuesday hearing in Baltimore, Hollander voiced skepticism about DOGE’s claims of needing broad access to SSA records to detect fraud, describing the allegations of widespread abuse as “questionable.” The hearing brought further attention to the methods DOGE has used in seeking data access, and whether those approaches align with lawful and ethical standards.

Critics argue that the attempt by DOGE to dig into SSA’s archives, which hold extensive details on nearly every American — from income and employment history to medical and familial records — could set a dangerous precedent if unchecked. The SSA database is considered one of the most comprehensive government-held data sets, and any breach or misuse could result in severe consequences for personal privacy and data protection across the country.

While representatives for SSA and DOGE have yet to comment publicly on the ruling, the injunction sends a strong message about the limits of authority when it comes to public data. For Musk, who has often promoted aggressive reforms in both corporate and governmental settings, the legal setback marks a significant challenge to his high-profile campaign to overhaul government systems through technological and operational streamlining.

The broader implications of the ruling may also shape how other federal departments and contractors approach data access in the future. The growing tension between efficiency-driven reforms and civil liberties is now being played out in courtrooms, with this case likely to become a landmark in defining digital privacy boundaries in the age of artificial intelligence and mass data.

Supporters of the ruling say the injunction protects not just legal standards but public trust. “This isn’t about politics — it’s about the principle that our government should not hand over the keys to one of the most sensitive vaults of American information without oversight,” said a representative from one of the labor unions involved in the lawsuit.

As the legal battle continues, the next phases of the case will likely delve deeper into DOGE’s internal protocols, the basis for its fraud investigations, and whether its operations are aligned with federal data laws. Until then, the court’s order ensures a protective wall remains in place around the SSA’s sensitive records — a win for privacy advocates and a reminder that even powerful figures and departments must operate within the boundaries of the law.