DOGE reportedly pulled financial, employment, and tax data from multiple agencies without public disclosure—privileges no business or federal agency would be allowed. Its unchecked access to personal data is under legal fire, facing lawsuits from privacy advocates and state attorneys general. Will the courts or Congress step in?
For many, DOGE appears to operate without any established standard for handling personal data, a level of access that would be unthinkable in the private sector. Unlike businesses that must comply with strict data privacy regulations and federal agencies that adhere to security mandates such as the Federal Information Systems Modernization Act (FISMA), DOGE is bound by neither.
That lack of oversight is now facing legal scrutiny. Lawsuits against DOGE continue to mount, with complaints filed against multiple federal agencies. The core issue is whether DOGE’s data access and collection violate the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 and other federal privacy protections.
Who’s Challenging DOGE?
The plaintiffs are a diverse group, including students, consumer rights groups, federal employees and labor unions, state attorneys general, and privacy advocacy groups such as the lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Many of these lawsuits seek to halt DOGE’s access to personal data immediately, while some go further, demanding DOGE delete any data it has already collected.
One of the most significant legal battles is the University of California Student Association’s (UCSA) lawsuit against the Department of Education. The case alleges that federal privacy laws were breached, exposing the personal information of more than 42 million student borrowers—everything from Social Security numbers to detailed financial records. Judge Randolph Moss denied UCSA’s request for a temporary restraining order, citing testimony from DOGE staffer Adam Ramada, which downplays immediate risks.
Beyond Student Data: The Full Scope of DOGE’s Reach
The lawsuits against DOGE and federal agencies collectively cover a pool of PII data beyond student loan data. These complaints object to DOGE employees and volunteers’ unfettered access to highly sensitive personal information, including:
- IRS tax records – Income details, financial assets, child support records, investment portfolios, divorce settlements, and alimony arrangements.
- Employment data – Salaries, job histories, and benefits information.
- Financial records – Bank account details, credit history, and more.
The sheer breadth of this access raises serious concerns. Unlike businesses and federal agencies that must follow strict privacy and security rules, DOGE seems to exist in a loophole that allows it to operate without clear restrictions.
The Federal Privacy Act of 1974: A Law Ignored?
When most of us in the digital ad tech space think about PII, we think of consumer data protection laws, such as CCPA. But, PII protection goes back more than fifty years to when Congress passed the Federal Privacy Act of 1974.
In response to growing concerns about federal agencies collecting and sharing PII, this law limits government overreach in handling personal data. It restricts how agencies gather, store, and disclose personal data and requires transparency and safeguards to prevent misuse.
Under this law, agencies must:
- Limit the disclosure of personal records.
- Provide transparency on how data is used.
- •Allow individuals to review and correct their records.
DOGE, however, has sidestepped these protections, granting its staff access to sensitive personal information without notifying affected individuals.
Despite these legal protections, DOGE has reportedly been able to obtain financial, employment, and tax data from multiple agencies without publicly disclosing how the information is secured or whether it will be used beyond its original purpose.
There is a growing fear that DOGE has been allowed to operate with little regard for privacy laws meant to limit this kind of unchecked access.
A Double Standard for Data Privacy
Proponents of Elon Musk’s efforts say they want the government to be run like a business, but if DOGE were a business, it wouldn’t be allowed near this data, not without strict oversight.
Private companies that handle financial and personal records must comply with various regulations, such as:
- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act — Governing financial institutions’ use of customer data.
- HIPAA — Protecting medical records.
- Fair Credit Reporting Act– Restricting access to consumer financial data.
Banks can’t pull tax records at will. Credit agencies need a legal justification to access financial data. Even major tech firms must adhere to consumer privacy laws. Yet DOGE has been granted sweeping access across multiple federal agencies—with no equivalent restrictions.
This isn’t just hypothetical. Shortly after launching doge.gov, DOGE publicly exposed classified budgetary and personnel details from the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). A private company leaking this kind of information would face severe legal and financial repercussions. DOGE? No consequences.
Businesses must follow ISO 27001 and SOC 2 security standards, and federal agencies must comply with FISMA. DOGE operates in a regulatory gray area—there are no clear controls, no external audits, and no accountability for security failures. The lawsuits aim to change that.
Legal Uncertainty Leaves DOGE’s Data Practices Unchecked
Federal judges have rejected temporary restraining orders (TROs) to block DOGE from accessing data or placing employees on leave, citing insufficient evidence of immediate harm.
In a blow to privacy advocates, Judge Tanya Chutkan’s February 18 ruling against 14 state attorneys general who sought TROs said that the potential of future misuse was not enough to justify emergency intervention. However, the court left open the possibility for broader injunctive relief if more substantial evidence emerges.
Will the Courts or Congress Step In?
With at least a dozen lawsuits pending, DOGE’s legal battles are far from over. Privacy advocates, state attorneys general, and industry leaders are closely watching whether the courts—or Congress—will impose meaningful safeguards.
Until then, DOGE continues to operate in a regulatory void, with unrestricted access to financial, employment, and tax records. Whether that changes will depend on how much pressure the courts and lawmakers are willing to apply.