A federal judge has allowed a landmark lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and two labor unions to proceed against Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The plaintiffs allege that DOGE’s access to sensitive personal records of federal employees violates constitutional privacy protections and federal data laws.
The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, includes over 100 current and former government workers. It challenges the legality of the mass transfer of personnel data—such as Social Security numbers, background checks, and security clearance information—from the OPM to DOGE, an agency Musk was appointed to lead under President Trump’s government restructuring initiative. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block further data sharing and to require the return or deletion of records already handed over.
The government sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the data transfers were lawful under executive authority. However, the court rejected that motion, ruling that the EFF and its co-plaintiffs presented a credible legal claim that deserves to be heard. The judge’s decision does not resolve the merits of the case, but it does allow discovery and further legal arguments to move forward.
This lawsuit adds to the intensifying scrutiny of DOGE’s operations and Musk’s role in expanding federal data access under the guise of government “efficiency.” Privacy advocates argue that the agency is consolidating sensitive information without clear oversight or accountability, posing significant risks to civil liberties and data security.
EFF lawyers emphasized the importance of the ruling, stating that unchecked access to federal employee records by a politically appointed agency raises “deep constitutional concerns.” If successful, the case could set a precedent limiting how far executive agencies can go in collecting and centralizing personal data without legislative approval or due process.
As legal proceedings continue, the case will likely become a focal point in the broader debate over data privacy, executive overreach, and the balance between administrative reform and individual rights in the digital age. The ruling marks a critical first step in challenging DOGE’s unprecedented authority over federal information systems.
