A divided federal appeals court has temporarily lifted an injunction, allowing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access sensitive personal data from the Treasury and Education departments, as well as the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The 2–1 decision from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stays a March 24 ruling that had blocked such access, pending further review.
The lawsuit—brought by five labor unions and six military veterans—alleges that DOGE’s sweeping data requests violate federal privacy laws. The data in question includes Social Security numbers, birthdates, income information, citizenship status, student loan records, and veterans’ disability details. Critics argue that the centralization of such information under DOGE, which was created under the Trump administration and is led by Musk, poses serious risks to personal privacy and political neutrality.
In her earlier decision, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman sided with the plaintiffs, ordering a halt to DOGE’s access on constitutional grounds. But the appellate panel’s majority found that the administration’s argument—that DOGE’s work is essential to rooting out inefficiency and fraud in government systems—warranted interim access while the case proceeds.
One dissenting judge issued a sharp warning, saying the ruling “lets the proverbial genie out of the bottle” by enabling a politically appointed agency to obtain unprecedented access to federal databases without clear oversight or procedural safeguards.
The appeals court has scheduled an expedited hearing for May 5 to determine whether the injunction should be reinstated. In the meantime, DOGE will retain access to the contested data, intensifying ongoing debates over digital privacy, executive overreach, and the limits of administrative power.
The decision marks a critical moment in the growing legal battles surrounding DOGE’s mandate and Musk’s expanding role within the federal apparatus. As concerns mount over the consolidation of government data, the outcome of this case could set a lasting precedent for how personal information is managed—and protected—within the U.S. government.
