
Supreme Court lets DOGE access sensitive Social Security Administration information
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the White House's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to access sensitive information kept by the Social Security Administration while legal proceedings move forward.
In an unsigned order, the high court agreed to temporarily lift an injunction issued by a federal district court in Maryland that limited DOGE's access to agency systems of records containing the personal information of millions of Americans. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
"We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work," the Supreme Court said.
The emergency appeal to the Supreme Court was the first to land before the high court that directly involved DOGE, the initiative previously led by Elon Musk that aims to shrink the size of the federal government. DOGE's sweeping efforts have sparked numerous lawsuits. Plaintiffs have argued that the task force has violated federal privacy law governing the government's collection and use of Americans' information kept by agencies.
The lawsuit
The challenge before the high court was brought by two labor unions and an advocacy group, which alleged that the Social Security Administration had unlawfully granted DOGE unfettered access to its data systems containing massive quantities of sensitive and personally identifiable records. In addition to Social Security numbers, the agency's systems house medical information, school records, employment histories and financial data, among other records.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander concluded in April that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the Social Security Administration's decision to give DOGE access to millions of Americans' confidential information violated the Privacy Act and a federal law governing the agency rulemaking process.
She did allow DOGE team members to have access to redacted or anonymized information from the Social Security Administration, but only if they met certain conditions, such as undergoing trainings and background investigations.
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit declined a Trump administration request to lift that injunction, and the Justice Department turned to the Supreme Court for emergency relief.
In asking the high court to lift the district court's injunction, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the block is forcing the executive branch to stop federal employees tasked with modernizing government systems from accessing the data contained within them.
"The government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs," he said.
Sauer also argued that the district court did not have the legal authority to issue sweeping relief, which he said harmed "urgent federal priorities" and thwarted the executive branch's functions.
"Employees charged with modernizing government information systems and routing out fraud, waste, and abuse in data systems plainly need access to those systems," he wrote. "Yet the district court instead viewed agency employees within the SSA DOGE team as the equivalent of intruders who break into hotel rooms."
But lawyers for the plaintiffs said that the Social Security Administration's efforts to give DOGE team members access to its data systems is a departure from the agency's commitment to data security.
"SSA granted unprecedented and sweeping access to the most sensitive information held by the government, doing so without acknowledging the sea change in their own practices and policies, without considering the reliance interests millions of Americans have in SSA continuing to preserve the confidence of their information, and without acknowledging or considering the risks posed by unauthorized DOGE Team access," they wrote in a filing.
The unions argued that their members' harm builds every day that DOGE has access to sensitive, personally identifiable information at the Social Security Administration, and said Americans' right to privacy is at stake.
President Trump established DOGE on his first day back in the White House. The task force's employees have been dispatched to agencies across the executive branch as part of the president's plan to decrease the size of the government.
But DOGE's efforts to access Americans' sensitive data at agencies including the Departments of Treasury and Education, and the Office of Personnel Management, have sparked legal fights over whether the task force's members have been complying with the Privacy Act, the federal law that aims to protect Americans' private information.
Musk's previous work with DOGE, before he left government service last week, led to its own set of challenges that argue his actions violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause. A different federal judge in Maryland ruled in March that Musk and DOGE likely violated the Constitution through its unilateral shut down of the U.S. Agency for International Development. The 4th Circuit agreed to pause that decision while it considers an appeal by the Trump administration.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Indianapolis Star
28 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Trump-Musk feud shows why GOP can't actually balance the budget
The honeymoon phase of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk's bromance has been waning for weeks, and now their relationship appears torn beyond repair just as publicly as it started. The pair exchanged blows on social media June 5, with Trump threatening on Truth Social to strip Musk's companies of subsidies, while Musk took credit for the 2024 GOP victory and took to X to accuse Trump of being on the Jeffrey Epstein list. This ridiculous escalation distracts from the real point at issue, though. Musk seems frustrated that Republicans used him in their charade to balance the federal budget, frustrated that Trump used him for his own end. But he really should be frustrated that he was so gullible – because he should have seen all of this coming. I'm frustrated that this is the only thing receiving attention, considering the amount of work that needs to be done with the budget. Whether Musk genuinely believed himself when he promised to cut $2 trillion (before quickly tempering that estimate) is up for debate. If he did believe it, he was entirely naive about both the current state of the Republican Party and our federal government. Republicans thought they could use Musk as a political win and distraction, allowing him to claw back government spending through the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, while congressional Republicans authorized massive deficit increases. Even after accounting for the economic growth that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would stimulate, it's projected to add $2.4 trillion (yes, with a T) to the federal deficit over the next decade. This figure stands as a mountain next to the small pile of $2 billion (yes, with a B) worth of verifiable budget cuts from DOGE. Hicks: Soaring national debt means cities need to prepare for cuts All the while, Republicans and Trump sang Musk's praises, knowing that they would turn around and spend money that we don't have. But Musk should have realized it was all a show. Trump skyrocketed the deficit in his first presidency, and every promise he's ever given for a balanced budget has been a lie. As much as MAGA likes to claim otherwise, Trump's GOP is no different than the swamp creatures they like to criticize. Those who are actually interested in cutting government spending, which I think Musk at least somewhat seems to be, should not attach the idea to political parties because they will inevitably disappoint. There hasn't been a genuine effort to produce a balanced budget since the late 1990s, and there isn't likely to be from either Republicans or Democrats anytime soon. I'm not the least bit surprised that these two narcissists' relationship flamed out so quickly. There was never enough room in Trump's White House for both his and Musk's personalities. Trump has never maintained an extended relationship with somebody who is willing to disagree with him publicly. During his first term, Trump had extremely high personnel turnover rates, both among his Cabinet and his aides. Trump's 'you're fired' catchphrase really says a lot about his approach to relationships. He is quick to turn on people who disagree with him or even just publicly embarrass him. Hicks: Indiana's startling Medicaid math forces unpleasant choices Musk has been loudly advocating against Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" for its impact on the deficit. After a week of Musk criticizing the deficit spending in Trump's bill, the president has clearly had enough. He cannot tolerate a dissenting voice from within his ranks. Trump and the GOP are now likely to kick a powerful ally to the curb, all because Trump is so vain that he cannot handle differing opinions. This is why the Republican Party is now made up of yes-men, because they have allowed Trump to push all the spine that he can out of the party. Now that the sideshow of Musk is gone, Republicans have one less thing to hide behind. I'm not sure that makes it any more likely they'll act responsibly, but at least it's more transparent to Americans now.


Washington Post
34 minutes ago
- Washington Post
2026 races loom at Georgia Republican convention as Trump loyalty dominates
DALTON, Ga. — Steve Bannon took the stage Friday night at the Georgia Republican Convention to say it's too early to be talking about 2026. 'Don't even think about the midterms,' the Republican strategist told activists. 'Not right now. '26, we'll think about it later. It's backing President Trump right now.' But it didn't work. There was plenty of praise for Donald Trump. And while the party took care of other business like electing officers and adopting a platform, the 2026 races for governor and Senate were already on the minds of many on Friday and Saturday in the northwest Georgia city of Dalton. 'Everybody campaigns as quick as they can,' U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene told The Associated Press Saturday. Lots of other people showed up sounding like candidates. Greene, after passing on a U.S. Senate bid against Democratic incumbent Jon Ossoff, laid out a slate of state-level issues on Saturday that will likely fuel speculation that she might run for governor. Echoing Trump's signature slogan, Greene told the convention to 'Make Georgia great again, for Georgia.' She called for abolishing the state income tax, infusing 'classical' principles into Georgia's public schools, reopening mental hospitals to take mentally ill people off the streets, and changing Georgia's economic incentive policy to de-emphasize tax breaks for foreign companies and television and moviemakers. 'Now these are state-level issues, but I want you to be talking about them,' Greene said. In her AP interview before the speech, Greene said running for governor is an 'option,' but also said she has a 'wonderful blessing' of serving her northwest Georgia district and exercising influence in Washington. 'Pretty much every single primary poll shows that I am the top leader easily, and that gives me the ability to think about it. But it's a choice. It's my own, that I will talk about with my family.' More likely to run for governor is Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who is expected to announce a bid later this summer. 'I promise you, I'm going to be involved in this upcoming election cycle,' Jones told delegates Friday. Like Greene, Jones is among the Georgia Republicans closest to Trump, and emphasized that 'the circle is small' of prominent Republicans who stood by the president after the 2020 election. Jones also took a veiled shot at state Attorney General Chris Carr, who declared his bid for governor in December and showed up Friday to work the crowd, but did not deliver a speech to the convention. 'Always remember who showed up for you,' Jones said. 'And always remember who delivers on their promises.' Carr told the AP that he didn't speak because he was instead attending a campaign event at a restaurant in Dalton on Friday, emphasizing the importance of building personal relationships. Although Trump targeted him for defeat in the 2022 primary, Carr said he's confident that Republicans will support him, calling himself a 'proud Kemp Republican,' and saying he would focus on bread-and-butter issues. 'This state's been built on agriculture, manufacturing, trade, the military, public safety,' Carr said. 'These are the issues that Georgians care about.' The easiest applause line all weekend was pledging to help beat Ossoff. 'Jon Ossoff should not be in office at all,' said U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, who is spending heavily on television advertising to support his Senate run. 'Folks, President Trump needs backup, he needs backup in the Senate,' said state Insurance Commissioner John King, who is also running for the Senate. 'He's going to need a four-year majority to get the job done. And that starts right here in the state of Georgia.' Former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley, who expressed interest Friday in running for Senate, did not address delegates. But one other potential candidate, U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, did. Collins told delegates that in 2026 it was a priority to defeat Ossoff and replace him with a 'solid conservative.' It's not clear, though, if Collins himself will run. 'We're going to see how this thing plays out,' Collins told the AP. 'I'm not burning to be a senator, but we've got to take this seat back.'


Axios
35 minutes ago
- Axios
Gender stereotypes shape reactions to Trump-Musk outburst
Elon Musk and Donald Trump's very public clash is rekindling a debate over gender stereotypes. Why it matters: The reality is few leaders could get away with feuding on social media. But the debacle revealed competing views about how powerful men — and women — might be expected to communicate. Driving the news: The fight drew observations on social media and various media outlets that the president and world's richest CEO were acting more like " Real Housewives" — or defying the trope that women are the ones more prone to emotional outbursts. Yet even those observations received backlash in some feminist circles for invoking gender references at all to slam their behavior. "One of the oldest and most persistent gender stereotypes is that women are too emotional," Harvard Business Review contributors wrote in a research paper disputing the stereotype last year. It "hurts women's leadership prospects as they are seen as less fit for leader roles because they are perceived to be more likely to make irrational, emotion-driven decisions than men." State of play: In Trump's case, he won two elections after casting two women opponents (Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris) as temperamentally unfit for the job. Some Americans may have agreed with him: A Georgetown University poll released in 2019 found about 13% of Americans said men were better suited emotionally than women for political office. In a pithy reference to stereotypes, journalist Sam Stein posted on X: "Are men maybe too emotional for positions of leadership?" CNN's Abby Phillip also quipped on air: "These men, too emotional to lead, apparently." Case in point: At one point in the war of words Thursday, Trump wrote that he "took away" Musk's electric vehicles mandate in the "one big, beautiful bill" at the root of their breakup, and his former adviser "just went CRAZY!" By Friday, the president told CNN's Dana Bash: "I'm not even thinking about Elon." What they're saying: "Oh man, the girls are fighting, aren't they?" Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told a reporter Thursday in D.C. (Some people got the meme she's referencing, which originated from rapper Azealia Banks. Others saw it as negatively coded toward women or girls.) Right-wing influencer Jack Posobiec posted on X: "Some of y'all cant handle 2 high agency males going at it and it really shows," he wrote. "This is direct communication (phallocentric) vs indirect communication (gynocentric)." New York Times opinion writer Jessica Grose responded to Posobiec's view of masculinity: "Historically, 'phallocentric' communication was that you walked over to a guy and punched him in the face, or asked him to step outside." "Hurling epithets over social media ... is not behavior that I think of as traditionally male; if anything, it's passive-aggressive and female coded," she wrote. The bottom line: It's hard to imagine a woman CEO — let alone president — engaging in a public feud with a onetime ally on apps they respectively own.