U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander issued a temporary restraining order on March 20, 2025, barring DOGE officials from accessing Social Security Administration systems containing sensitive data12. The Obama appointee criticized DOGE's approach as a "fishing expedition" based on mere suspicion, likening it to "hitting a fly with a sledgehammer"13. Judge Hollander's order requires DOGE to:

• Cease access to systems with personally identifiable information

• Delete any non-anonymized data obtained

• Remove any software installed in SSA systems

• Refrain from altering SSA system code12

The ruling emphasized that while rooting out government fraud is in the public interest, it doesn't justify disregarding legal protections1.

The federal judge's ruling highlighted the significant privacy concerns surrounding DOGE's access to sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) data. The court order emphasized the potential risks to millions of Americans' personal information:

• DOGE had access to vast amounts of personally identifiable information (PII) without proper authorization12

• PII included Social Security numbers, medical records, employment data, and financial information2

• Millions of Americans were potentially exposed to risks of identity theft, financial fraud, and doxxing3

• Judge Hollander noted the irony of DOGE concealing its own affiliates' identities while disregarding privacy concerns for SSA data subjects12

• The court mandated DOGE to delete and "disgorge" all unlawfully obtained data to mitigate ongoing threats3

The ruling underscored the need for stringent safeguards when handling sensitive government data, especially given the vast scope and personal nature of information held by the Social Security Administration.

The lawsuit against DOGE has expanded beyond labor unions and advocacy groups, with multiple legal challenges now targeting Elon Musk's controversial agency. American Oversight filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking Musk's communications regarding efforts to purge the federal workforce, particularly the mass firing of independent federal agency inspectors general1. This lawsuit aims to test whether DOGE is subject to FOIA, as Musk's previous claims of transparency clash with attempts to shield records from public disclosure.

Additionally, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) sued Musk and DOGE on behalf of several organizations, alleging that their actions are illegal and threaten the constitutionally mandated separation of powers2. The suit challenges DOGE's authority to slash federal funding, dismantle agencies, and fire federal employees, arguing that such decisions lie with Congress, not an unelected megadonor3.

Critics argue that Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) represents a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a private citizen with significant business interests. Concerns have been raised about potential conflicts of interest, given Musk's vast corporate empire including Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter)1. Some experts draw parallels to historical examples of corporate overreach, likening DOGE's influence to that of the British East India Company's gradual acquisition of quasi-governmental powers1.

DOGE's aggressive cost-cutting measures, including mass layoffs of an estimated 100,000 federal employees, have been criticized as reckless and potentially damaging to essential government services2. Critics warn that DOGE's unprecedented access to sensitive government databases, including the Treasury payment system, poses significant privacy and national security risks34. Senator Richard Blumenthal described Musk's actions as an "information heist unparalleled in American history," while others have raised alarms about the lack of transparency and accountability in DOGE's operations45.