In a controversial decision that got everyone talking, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the thumbs up to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access sensitive data from the Social Security administration. They can now look at all sorts of information, like how much money people make, their medical history, and even what they learned in school.
The court also said that the DOGE doesn’t have to follow the usual rules of telling us what they’re doing. This is all thanks to a law called the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which is supposed to help us get information.
But now it’s keeping us all in the dark.
These choices, supported by the conservative side, are part of Trump’s push for more executive power. Critics, like Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, say they’re a problem for keeping our information safe.
Justice Jackson was upset in her response, saying the court gave the go-ahead for people to have complete access to our data without showing that they need it or care about keeping it private. The SSA handles over a trillion and a half dollars in government payments yearly, and more than 70 million Americans depend on things like Social Security, Medicare, and SSI.
Now that the DOGE has full access, privacy advocates are worried that watching over citizens is turning into spying.
What Led to DOGE’s Rise and Musk’s Fallout?
Originally formed to cut government waste, DOGE gained momentum under Donald Trump and once operated under the leadership of Elon Musk. However, the agency’s controversial trajectory intensified after Elon Musk’s public breakup with the President and his formal resignation from DOGE on May 30.
The top court’s ruling also put a decision from a lower court on hold, saying that DOGE had to open up about its inner workings under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This started because Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) went to court. They claimed that DOGE acted like a government department and needed to be treated the same way, meaning it had to be transparent about its actions.
View this post on Instagram
CREW stated that DOGE and its functioning did not follow “judicial deference and restraint.”
They warned that presidents could now “create new entities that would functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency.”
Adding fuel to the fire, SSA’s acting commissioner, Michelle King, resigned in February after refusing to comply with DOGE’s data demands, citing potential misuse. After three decades of public service, her exit prompted the White House to install a temporary “anti-fraud expert” to investigate potential duplicate or fraudulent Social Security payments.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted the effort was to “protect the integrity of the system for hardworking Americans who have been paying into it their entire lives.”
Still, critics say DOGE’s opaque operations leave Americans vulnerable to data overreach.
Legal Gray Zones and Public Outcry
The legal battle isn’t over.
Judge Christopher Cooper had greenlit a separate challenge by CREW, which had previously ruled that DOGE must comply with FOIA. However, with the Supreme Court’s intervention, that ruling is paused, further shielding the agency from public accountability.
Brilliant idea from @RepRaskin. Since @DOGE is a government agency, it is subject to FOIA requests under the Privacy Act. Meaning that all 340 million of us have the right to know what data they have on us that they’ve obtained from the various federal agencies they’ve ransacked. pic.twitter.com/vymrt37IXu
— Andrew—#IAmTheResistance—Wortman (@AmoneyResists) March 15, 2025
Central to Trump’s federal workforce downsizing initiative, DOGE faces scrutiny from advocacy groups and unions who accuse it of functioning beyond its legal mandate.
Critics say it acts like an “intelligence agency without rules,” which only answers to the President.
Whether DOGE’s role expands or is curbed in the coming months may depend on further legal challenges and the outcome of the 2026 elections.
