Trump Wins Court Fight Over DOGE Privacy Dispute \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Supreme Court granted two major legal victories to President Trump’s administration involving DOGE, including access to Social Security data. The court also paused transparency orders against the controversial government efficiency team once led by Elon Musk. The decisions reflect growing judicial support for Trump’s executive authority amid legal backlash.
Quick Looks
- Supreme Court allows DOGE access to sensitive SSA data
- Justices pause transparency demands on DOGE operations
- Liberal justices dissent, citing privacy and oversight concerns
- DOGE’s future uncertain post-Musk amid Trump fallout
- Legal challenges mount against DOGE’s sweeping authority
Deep Look
President Donald Trump secured two significant Supreme Court victories Friday in cases involving his controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), reinforcing executive authority while igniting debate over privacy rights and government transparency. The rulings, split along ideological lines, represent the high court’s first direct involvement in DOGE’s legal battles—and a potential roadmap for broader executive actions in Trump’s second term.
In the first case, the court granted the administration access to the Social Security Administration’s vast databases, overturning a lower court ruling that had temporarily blocked DOGE from retrieving personal data on millions of Americans. The decision gives Trump’s data-driven watchdog agency—originally spearheaded by Elon Musk—deep access to sensitive government records, including salaries, school records, and medical histories.
“We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,” read the unsigned order from the court’s conservative majority.
The ruling was strongly opposed by the court’s liberal wing. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, warned of “grave privacy risks,” accusing the majority of giving DOGE “unfettered data access… without proof of need or safeguards.” Jackson’s dissent criticized the agency’s lack of transparency, noting DOGE’s history of bypassing standard privacy procedures and sidestepping public accountability.
The administration argues DOGE’s mission—to eliminate waste and fraud in the federal government—necessitates access to real-time, comprehensive data. Elon Musk, who once chaired the team before a political rift with Trump, had long labeled Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and prioritized rooting out alleged fraud within it. Musk’s departure from the White House in early 2025 triggered a sharp breakdown in his relationship with Trump, including public disputes, canceled government contracts, and Musk’s call for the president’s impeachment. Nonetheless, both men have stated that DOGE will continue to function, albeit under new leadership.
The second Supreme Court ruling dealt with transparency. The justices extended a block on a lower court order that would have forced DOGE to release internal documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had filed suit arguing that DOGE, as a federally funded and staffed operation, must comply with FOIA. They claim the administration is shielding the agency from public scrutiny despite its sweeping influence.
The Trump administration counters that DOGE is not an agency, but rather a presidential advisory body created for internal efficiency audits—and is therefore exempt from FOIA requirements. The court did not settle that dispute on Friday but criticized the scope of U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s initial ruling, finding it overly broad.
The dual rulings come at a pivotal time for DOGE. Without Musk and amid rising backlash, the agency has faced more than two dozen lawsuits ranging from labor violations to alleged data misuse. One such suit, filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of labor unions and retirees, challenges DOGE’s Social Security probes, describing them as baseless “fishing expeditions.” U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander initially limited DOGE’s access, only allowing trained personnel to review anonymous data unless specific, justified needs were documented.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, accused the judiciary of overstepping its constitutional role. He warned that federal judges were “micromanaging” executive operations and undermining efforts to modernize government systems.
Despite Friday’s legal win, the controversies surrounding DOGE show no sign of slowing. Critics argue the agency operates with minimal oversight while affecting sweeping changes—ranging from budget cuts to agency closures and mass layoffs. Legal experts say these court cases are likely only the beginning, especially as Trump moves to entrench DOGE further within the federal framework during his second term.
Friday’s decisions also highlight the power of Trump’s judicial appointments. With a 6–3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the administration has found an increasingly sympathetic ear in Washington’s highest court. These rulings may embolden the White House to further test legal limits on executive authority, particularly in matters related to data, surveillance, and personnel decisions.
For now, DOGE has avoided major legal setbacks, and the Trump administration appears poised to press forward with its government restructuring agenda. But questions about privacy, transparency, and constitutional boundaries are only intensifying—setting the stage for more courtroom showdowns in the months ahead.
Trump Wins Court Trump Wins Court
You must Register or Login to post a comment.