Two Lawsuits Raise Critical Questions About Whether Privacy Rights Have Been Violated by DOGE Members

By: Elizabeth Laird , Kristin W. , & Quinn Anex-Ries

In the last 24 hours, two lawsuits have been filed that raise serious concerns about whether the Trump Administration is violating critical, long-standing legal privacy protections as members of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team gain unprecedented access to government systems.

On Monday, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the Service Employees International Union, represented by Public Citizen and the State Democracy Defenders Fund, sued the Department of the Treasury for granting DOGE staff access to highly sensitive information about taxpayers and others who send and receive payments from the government, including allegations of violations of privacy protections that were enacted in the 1970s as well as Internal Revenue Service code. These protections exist to ensure that sensitive information held by the Treasury Department, like social security numbers and pensions, are treated with the utmost care given the dire consequences of their misuse. The suit implicates a core tenet of privacy regulation: data collected for a specific authorized purpose shouldn’t be shared or used for a different purpose without knowing consent.

On Tuesday, two employees of the Office of Personnel Management sued their employer for failing to meet their legal obligation put forth in the E-Government Act of 2002 to evaluate privacy concerns before using new email procedures to collect confidential information from every civilian federal employee, risking exposure of the personally identifiable information of over two million government employees. Playing fast and loose with privacy in this instance could, for example, open federal agencies to increased risk of phishing attacks or expose the personal information of federal employees to unauthorized parties. If a data leak were to result, it’s virtually impossible to undo the damage.

While the particulars of the cases differ, together they underscore that the government’s efforts to improve efficiency cannot supersede long-standing legal obligations to protect people’s privacy — not just for government employees but for everyone whose lives the government touches (which is to say, everyone).?

Both complaints also cite a common challenge in evaluating whether federal agencies are acting in accordance with their long-standing privacy requirements — lack of transparency about who is accessing information and for what reasons. It is crucial that the judicial branch act quickly on these lawsuits to potentially curb illegal activities; at the same time, Congress should exercise its oversight authority to investigate whether existing privacy protections are being actively violated in the name of government efficiency. Government transparency is a core, bipartisan tenet of effective, efficient, and democratic governance and is needed more than ever as sweeping changes to federal agencies and programs are pursued.

These lawsuits raise serious specific concerns, but they also point to even bigger potential threats. The government — whether through schools, health agencies, social insurance programs, prisons or other entities — holds a tremendous amount of sensitive information. And it has an obligation to treat that information with extreme care, especially since individuals are often required to share such information with government agencies in the first place. Fortunately, Congress and federal agencies have long recognized this important responsibility, and, as such, have existing legal obligations. The task ahead is to ensure that federal agencies continue to meet these legal obligations, which were designed to protect the privacy of the American people. Reckless behavior has real, potentially catastrophic, consequences for individuals and for communities alike.

Digital safeguards exist for important reasons – as do laws that create them. When government officials, including the President, attempt to override them, it’s critical that civil society stand firm against those efforts.