This article contains a correction.
For once in the data privacy world, the problem isn’t a lack of legal protections. When it comes to the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to federal data systems, the law is clear—they ignored it anyway.
Born out of the post-Watergate era, the Privacy Act of 1974 was a direct response to government overreach and abuse of personal information. Its core principles are clear: Individuals have the right to control their personal data; government agencies are limited in how they can disclose that data; and strict accountability measures are in place for those who manage it. As then-Sen. Sam J. Ervin (D-NC) warned in his introductory remarks on the act:
… the more the Government or any institution knows about us, the more power it has over us. When the Government knows all of our secrets, we stand naked before official power.
Ervin further cautioned that, without privacy protections, “the Bill of Rights then becomes just so many words.”
Now, more than 50 years later, those protections are being disregarded in ways that demand urgent scrutiny. DOGE, created by President Donald Trump’s executive order and shaped under Elon Musk’s direction through the restructuring of the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), has reportedly been granted sweeping access to federal data systems with little to no transparency or oversight.* While government scandals often hide behind legal gray areas and technicalities, the concerns surrounding DOGE’s access to federal data are based on clear statutory protections—which is why several lawsuits have been filed alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The issue isn’t complex policy: It’s people in power acting as though the rules don’t apply to them. The most alarming part isn’t just the potential data breach—it’s how easily the breaking of the law may have happened, cloaked in the language of “government efficiency” and “audits.” If such statutory safeguards can be disregarded so easily, what other legal protections could be next?
How the Privacy Act of 1974 restricts DOGE’s access
The Privacy Act sets a clear general rule: A government agency cannot share someone’s personal records with anyone—including other government agencies—unless that person gives written permission or formally requests it. While the law provides 12 exceptions permitting disclosure without consent, DOGE and the federal agencies in question can, at most, attempt to argue that two apply. However, even those are unlikely to legally support the extent of their alleged disclosures. These exceptions include:
- Agency Use Exception (§ 552a(b)(1)). This exception allows for the disclosure of records within the agency to employees who require access to perform their official duties. The key limitation of this exception is that access must be necessary for the employee’s job function. It does not permit broad or indiscriminate sharing of records nor does it authorize disclosure to individuals outside the agency.
- Routine Use Exception (§ 552a(b)(3)). The routine use exception permits agencies to disclose records for purposes that are compatible with the reason the information was originally collected. However, for an agency to invoke this exception, the routine use must be explicitly defined and published in the Federal Register before any disclosures occur. This safeguard ensures that agencies do not arbitrarily expand data-sharing practices beyond their initial intent.
Subsection (c) of the act requires agencies to keep detailed records of when and to whom they disclose personal records. This provision ensures transparency and accountability by mandating that agencies track the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure as well as the name and address of the recipient of the information. Importantly, individuals have the right to request a list of disclosures made about them, except when the records were shared for law enforcement purposes.
To enforce its protections, the Privacy Act imposes both civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of records. If an agency’s violation of the law results in harm to an individual, that person has the right to sue the agency in civil court. If the court finds that the agency acted intentionally or willfully, the government is required to compensate the individual for actual damages, with a minimum award of $1,000, plus attorney’s fees and litigation costs. Additionally, agency employees who willfully disclose protected personal information to unauthorized individuals or maintain a system of records without proper public notice can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined up to $5,000. Likewise, any person who knowingly obtains agency records under false pretenses is subject to a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $5,000.
See also
The DOGE scandal
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order establishing DOGE, granting it unprecedented access to federal data under the pretext of improving “efficiency.” The order explicitly directed federal agencies to provide DOGE with “full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.” However, no executive order can legally override statutory protections such as those enshrined in the Privacy Act. Moreover, as explained by Governing for Impact (GFI), the exact legal status of DOGE remains unclear.
From the start, the details surrounding DOGE’s authority and dealings have been a tangled web of contradictions, shifting explanations, and evasive answers from the administration. Trump publicly declared Elon Musk as the head of DOGE, suggesting he had direct authority over its operations and data access policies. Yet, recent court filings state that Musk is not officially recognized as the DOGE service administrator, raising further questions about who truly oversees the initiative and how its authority is being exercised. Adding to the confusion, Musk has been designated a special government employee, a classification that allows private sector figures to take on temporary government roles while maintaining outside business interests. However, his exact role and scope of authority within DOGE remains unclear. The involvement of a private sector tech billionaire with extensive personal financial and business interests in AI, surveillance, and data-driven industries immediately raised ethical and legal red flags.
The lack of transparency is compounded by alarming reports about its actual operations. DOGE operatives—including individuals with ties to private companies linked with Musk—have reportedly accessed multiple sensitive federal agency records. Reports indicate that systems within agencies such as the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Education, among others, were accessed. However, despite the sweeping authority granted to DOGE, Trump himself has contradicted the justification for such access. When asked at a press conference why DOGE needed access to sensitive Treasury Department information, Trump responded bluntly:
Well, it doesn’t, but they get it very easily … I mean, we don’t have very good security in our country, and they get it very easily.
Rather than justifying or clarifying DOGE’s role, Trump openly admitted to its unnecessary and unrestrained access, shifting blame onto federal agencies for failing to prevent what he acknowledged as an overreach. The President’s remarks reinforce the concerns that DOGE’s data access is not about improving efficiency but about the unchecked expansion of power.
Several lawsuits have been filed against DOGE and federal agencies, citing potential violations of the Privacy Act. Legal challenges from organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the National Treasury Employees Union, argue that agencies unlawfully disclosed sensitive personal records to DOGE without proper authorization. These cases highlight the need for answers to critical questions including: What federal data systems did DOGE access, and what level of access was granted? On what basis did agencies justify granting DOGE access to protected records? Did agencies maintain proper accounting of disclosures, as required by the Privacy Act?
The Privacy Act exists to ensure that sensitive personal data remains within federal agencies, where access is strictly controlled and limited to vetted employees who are subject to rigorous oversight. These employees undergo background checks, receive training on data protection, and are bound by legal obligations to safeguard the information they handle. By contrast, sharing personal data outside of these carefully controlled environments—particularly with an entity like DOGE, whose authority and oversight remain unclear—creates serious security risks. Unvetted individuals gaining access to sensitive government records could lead to misuse, exploitation, or leaks that compromise personal privacy and national security.
The risks posed by DOGE’s unchecked access to federal data are not abstract privacy concerns nor are they confined to any one political group or demographic. They have real-world consequences that affect everyone. Sensitive financial, medical, and employment records are stored within federal databases, and improper access could lead to wrongful benefit denials, delayed social security checks, or flagged tax returns. Beyond individual harm, allowing such breaches to go unchallenged threatens the integrity of federal systems and the trust Americans place in their government.
If DOGE’s unchecked access and Elon Musk’s involvement are allowed to go unchallenged, it sets a dangerous precedent—one where legal protections can be disregarded at will, paving the way for the systematic erosion of fundamental rights.
*Correction, February 28, 2025: This article has been updated to clarify the agency that was rebranded as DOGE.