Trump asks Supreme Court to grant Musk's DOGE access to Social Security data
The Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to intervene in its effort to grant the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) unrestricted access to the Social Security Administration's data on millions of Americans.The Justice Department requested a stay on a lower court ruling that blocked the data-sharing arrangement, which the judge deemed likely in violation of federal privacy laws, news agency Reuters reported.advertisement"The district court is forcing the Executive Branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access," the Justice Department lawyers wrote.
Solicitor General D John Sauer has called on the Supreme Court to overturn an injunction issued by the US District Judge Ellen Hollander, which currently blocks the DOGE from accessing sensitive Social Security Administration data—including Social Security numbers, medical records, and financial information.The Trump administration is requesting an immediate suspension of the judge's order while the Court weighs a longer-term decision, arguing that the restriction hampers DOGE's mission to detect waste and fraud—an effort officials describe as 'time sensitive', as reported by NBC News. Earlier this week, the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration's request to allow DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data. In a 9-6 decision, the court upheld the district judge's ruling that blocked the data-sharing arrangement.advertisementThe DOGE, led by Elon Musk, has rapidly expanded across federal agencies as part of a broader Trump-Musk initiative to eliminate waste, cut federal jobs, and restructure government operations.The administration's appeal to the Supreme Court stems from a lawsuit filed by two labor unions and an advocacy group, who argue that granting DOGE access to the Social Security Administration's most sensitive systems—including data on Americans' identities, finances, and medical history—violates federal privacy laws.The Supreme Court has asked the challengers to file their response to the administration's request by May 12.(With inputs from Reuters)Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘No time for life': Andhra Pradesh's new 10-hour work rule slammed by employees
The Andhra Pradesh government has decided to raise the maximum working hours from nine to 10 per day in a move that has led to outrage and backlash on social media. This decision from the TDP-led NDA government in Andhra Pradesh will allow private companies and factories to increase their maximum working hours to 10 per day, up one hour from the earlier nine. The decision to increase working hours from 9 to 10 has drawn criticism (Representational image) {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} As per a PTI report, the Information and Public Relations (I&PR) Minister K Parthasarathy said that it has been decided to amend labour laws to make them 'favourable' to workers and investors. {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} However, workers on social media struggled to see how increased working hours would be 'favourable' for them. The move has also drawn the ire of trade unions, Criticism of 10 hours per day policy {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} On social media, users said that increased work hours would benefit only business owners at the cost of employees. Many were of the opinion that private companies would implement 10 hours as mandatory policy, further affecting work-life balance. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} On social media, users said that increased work hours would benefit only business owners at the cost of employees. Many were of the opinion that private companies would implement 10 hours as mandatory policy, further affecting work-life balance. {{/usCountry}} {{^usCountry}} 'Good for financial growth. What about mental health? 10 hrs work, 2 hrs travelling, 8 hrs sleep, you have to do everything in left 4 hours,' wrote X user Ankit. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} 'Good for financial growth. What about mental health? 10 hrs work, 2 hrs travelling, 8 hrs sleep, you have to do everything in left 4 hours,' wrote X user Ankit. {{/usCountry}} {{^usCountry}} 'So the Andhra Pradesh govt thinks longer hours = better productivity? No, it means exploitation. More hours, same pay, worse lives. Workers deserve dignity, not burnout,' X user Supriya opined. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} 'So the Andhra Pradesh govt thinks longer hours = better productivity? No, it means exploitation. More hours, same pay, worse lives. Workers deserve dignity, not burnout,' X user Supriya opined. {{/usCountry}} {{^usCountry}} Several people said the move will lead to overworked employees who have no time to spend with family. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} Several people said the move will lead to overworked employees who have no time to spend with family. {{/usCountry}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} '9 hours of working itself was a lot and they still increased it. Overworking your employees has tickled down effects, people will have no time to spend with their families. AP fertility rate is already falling rapidly & you're disincentivizing people from having/raising kids,' an X user said. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} Others noted how maximum working hours in parts of India are already more than the global average of 8 hours per day. 'The Government is hand in glove with the corrupt corporations that want to exploit cheap labour,' a user said. Dozens of people wondered whether increased working hours would come with an accompanying pay raise. What the AP government says "Because of this (amendments to labour laws), investors in factories will (come to our state). These labour rules will be favourable for labourers and they will come to invest more. Globalisation is happening in every state. These amendments were brought to implement global rules," said Minister K Parthasarathy. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} Further, the minister observed that the cabinet has also relaxed night shift rules to enable more women to work in the night shifts. According to the I&PR Minister, women were not allowed to work in the night shifts earlier but now they can work with safeguards such as consent, transport facility, security and surveillance. Opposition slams move Meanwhile, K Ramakrishna, State Secretary of CPI, opposed the NDA alliance government's stand on labour laws amendments. He alleged that the Central and state governments are working against the interests of workers. "For the past 11 years, the Modi government has repeatedly taken measures that infringe upon workers' rights in India," Ramakrishan told PTI on Saturday. SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How did things get from bad to worse between Donald Trump and Elon Musk? A step-by-step guide
A no-holds-barred and very public blow-up between the world's richest man and the president of the United States has had social media agog in recent days, with each making serious accusations against the other. And while tech billionaire Elon Musk appears to have cooled the spat somewhat – deleting some of his more incendiary social media posts about Donald Trump – the president still appears to be in no mood to make up, warning Musk of 'very serious consequences' if he backs Democrats at the mid-term elections in 2026. Tensions erupted over Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' (OBBB). The OBBB proposes extensive tax cuts which could add roughly USD 3 trillion (AUD 4.62 trillion) to the US national debt. After stepping down from his role as advisor to Trump, Musk criticised the OBBB as 'disgusting abomination' that would 'burden America [sic] citizens with crushing unsustainable debt'. Trump returned fire, suggesting 'Elon was 'wearing thin', I asked him to leave […] and he just went CRAZY!'. In a dramatic escalation, Musk responded by calling for Trump's impeachment. Musk also tweeted allegations that Trump was implicated in the Epstein files related to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has since deleted those tweets. Why has the much-hyped 'bromance' between Musk and Trump suddenly ended? And what was the basis of their alliance in the first place? Like many billionaires, Musk had previously been hesitant to get involved in frontline politics. He says he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, but claimed in 2021 'I would prefer to stay out of politics'. In early 2024, Musk was still claiming to be politically non-aligned, suggesting he would not donate to either presidential campaign. This apparent neutrality ended following the attempted assassination of Trump at a July 2024 campaign rally, with Musk immediately endorsing Trump. In reality, Musk's conversion to the MAGA movement long predated the assassination attempt. Musk's hyperactive Twitter/X account shows a steady radicalisation. Across 2020-2024, Musk engaged with accounts sharing MAGA and far-right conspiracy theories. These include the antisemitic Great Replacement Theory, and the related South African white genocide conspiracy. Musk's posts also show the obsession with opposing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies characteristic of the MAGA movement. After endorsing Trump, Musk spent USD 288 million (AUD 444 million) supporting Trump's election and appeared at campaign events around the country. Musk's support for Trump was both ideological and pragmatic. From tax cuts to immigration restrictions to opposing DEI, there were clearly many ideological commonalities between Musk and Trump. There were also clear practical benefits for both men. Trump gained the financial backing of the world's wealthiest man. Musk gained not only unparalleled access to the US president, but also a role leading the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Early reporting on the second Trump presidency noted the omnipresence of Musk, who at one point moved into Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort to be close to the president. However, observers were sceptical about the potential effectiveness of DOGE, and Musk's claim it would save the government USD 2 trillion (AUD 3.02 trillion). In the early months of the Trump administration, Musk cut government programmes and employees at a remarkable rate. The USAID programme was particularly hard hit, as were the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As the spending cuts picked up pace, Musk began to attract more controversy. Critics questioned the apparent power wielded by the unelected billionaire. Musk's ties to the far right were also in the spotlight after he appeared to perform two 'Roman salutes', which many observers believed to be a Nazi salute. Musk's apparent rampage through government did not last long. As Trump's executive appointees assumed control of their departments, Musk and DOGE experienced increasing resistance. After a series of fractious cabinet meetings, Trump reportedly reduced the power of DOGE in March. Political attention was also clearly affecting Musk's businesses. The negative publicity has significantly damaged the Tesla brand, leading to declining sales around the world and repeated falls in Telsa's share price. On May 1, Musk announced he would be leaving DOGE, claiming the department had saved the government USD 180 billion (AUD 277 billion) in spending. This number is likely an exaggeration, but still falls well short of his original target. Musk has learned a harsh lesson in politics – that the complexities of government resist simple reform and cannot be easily rolled back in the way a CEO might slim down a company. For Trump, his manoeuvring of Musk appears to be another smart political move. As the public face of DOGE, Musk bore the negative rap for early government cuts and chaos. Having used his money and reputation, Trump dispensed with Musk as he has with so many advisers and appointees before. Musk departed his role in a muted White House ceremony, where Trump thanked him for his service and presented him with a ceremonial 'golden key' to the White House. However, behind the public show of civility, tension was brewing over Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. Trump and Musk had originally claimed the USD 2 trillion (AUD 3.02 trillion) in DOGE savings could be used to fund a substantial tax cut. With the efficiency savings not eventuating, Musk worried the OBBB would significantly increase US public debt. Unable to convince Trump or other Republican legislators, Musk took to X, launching a 'Kill the Bill' campaign that ultimately led to his incendiary showdown with Trump. For his part, Trump has belittled Musk, suggesting Musk only opposed the OBBB because it cut subsidies for electric vehicles. Though the subsidy cuts will affect Tesla, Musk has previously supported eliminating subsidies. Musk's anger at the OBBB is more likely driven by the realisation he has been played by Trump. Trump has used and discarded many other powerful figures in his chaotic political career. Musk has more power than most, and might be able to strike back at Trump. Yet, with his public reputation and brands already tarnished, Musk would be ill-advised to pick further fights with Trump and his adoring MAGA movement. Accordingly, Musk has indicated over the weekend he is open to a détente. Tesla investors will no doubt be relieved if Musk makes good on his pledge to step back from politics and return to his businesses. More concerning are the prospects for democracy. With wealth and power continuing to concentrate in a handful of billionaires, voters appear reduced to the role of viewers forced to watch the reality TV drama unfold. Though Trump appears to have won this round of billionaire battle royale, whatever happens next, democracy is the real loser.
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Los Angeles burns as Trump deploys National Guard amid immigration crackdown
Protests erupted across Los Angeles over the weekend as thousands gathered to oppose the Trump administration's immigration crackdown and the unprecedented federal deployment of National Guard troops without the state's consent. Here are the key developments: 1. On the third day of protests over the US administration's crackdown on immigration, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets Sunday in response to President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. 2. About 300 federal troops were deployed in the city—reportedly the first time in decades that the National Guard was activated without a governor's consent. 3. Groups of protesters, many carrying Mexican flags and signs denouncing US immigration authorities, gathered in multiple areas around the city. 4. As protests turned violent near the Metropolitan Detention Center, demonstrators blocked the 101 Freeway and Alphabet's Waymo self-driving vehicles were on fire. Demonstrators shouted 'Shame on you!' at police and some appeared to throw objects, video images showed. In return, law enforcement responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to disperse the crowd. 5. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the last time the National Guard was activated without a governor's permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama. 6. Federal authorities said the weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the Los Angeles area surpassed 100. Many more were arrested during protests, including a prominent union leader accused of impeding law enforcement. 7. Calling the deployment unlawful, California Governor Gavin Newsom requested the Trump administration to withdraw the order. Newsom accused Trump of trying to manufacture a crisis and violating the state's sovereignty. 'These are the acts of a dictator, not a president,' he wrote on X. The White House dismissed Newsom's comments, saying in a statement, 'Everyone saw the chaos, violence and lawlessness.' 8. In a social media post Sunday, Trump called the demonstrators 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' and said he had directed Cabinet officers 'to take all such action necessary' to stop what he called 'riots'. Speaking to reporters in New Jersey, Trump threatened violence against protesters: 'They spit, we hit.' 9. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum criticised the US government over the immigration raids and National Guard deployment. 'We do not agree with this way of addressing the immigration issue,' Sheinbaum said at a public event. 'The phenomenon will not be addressed with raids or violence. It will be by sitting down and working on comprehensive reform.' 10. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) carried out the largest single-day immigrant arrest operation in its history this week, detaining more than 2,200 people, according to NBC News. Trump has pledged to deport record numbers of undocumented immigrants and set a goal for ICE to arrest at least 3,000 migrants a day. –With inputs from AP and Reuters
