Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) efforts to tap into databases across the government is facing broad pushback from a variety of groups sounding the alarm over the privacy and security risks.
DOGE is facing more than a dozen lawsuits as its staffers pop up at agencies across the government, seeking to tap into databases covering everything from federal payments to citizens’ Social Security numbers, financial information and more.
Musk and the White House have framed the efforts as part of a broader search for waste, fraud, and abuse in government payments.
But critics see little-vetted government neophytes tapping into sensitive databases while posing substantial risk to consumers.
Alan Butler, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the DOGE takeover “a monumental shift” in how the government handles its sensitive data.
“These systems are critical to the functioning of government, in some cases, to the function of the global economy, and they also contain some of the most protected and sensitive data about Americans, and there is a major risk that in trying to accomplish even their stated goal, that they could cause monumental problems for millions of Americans,” he said.
Prior to the creation of DOGE, the government had entire offices at each agency designated to review potential waste, fraud and abuse, all overseen by inspectors general.
But President Trump has fired 18 inspectors general since he took office.
Now, DOGE staffers have shown up at multiple agencies with a similar mission, reportedly using AI to analyze information gathered from the lists.
“We’re talking about Social Security numbers, we’re talking about family income, we’re talking about whether you have a disability, we’re talking about whether you’re a citizen or incarcerated,” said Elizabeth Laird with the Center for Democracy & Technology.
“And then when you look at the scale of information, we’re talking about tens of millions of people, anyone who’s received a Social Security check or received student loans. And so given the security risk that it’s introduced, you need to be very careful with this information.”
DOGE has sought access to Department of Education data on student loan borrowers and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data that would include sensitive taxpayer information. It also has gained access to Office of Personnel Management data, which contains broad information about every federal employee, including information used to apply for security clearances.
Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) wrote in a Monday letter that the efforts at the IRS raise “serious concerns that Elon Musk and his associates are seeking to weaponize government databases containing private bank records and other confidential information to target American citizens and businesses as part of a political agenda.”
Perhaps the most far-reaching dataset DOGE actors have pushed to access is the Treasury Department’s payment systems.
“Essentially it’s the government’s check book,” Butler said.
“It’s the analog and digital payments issued by the U.S. government to a whole wide swath of entities and individuals that receive government payments, and that can be anything from benefits to payments on the national debt to grants to foreign assistance to trillions of dollars in payments. And so access to that system, understandably, is extremely limited and highly controlled.”
It’s unclear the extent DOGE is using artificial intelligence to analyze the datasets, but that also sparked caution from privacy experts.
“We know that AI systems are notoriously not very accurate. Some of them are no better than a coin flip,” Butler said, noting one of the goals has been to stop payments.
“An error in that regard could mean that someone is denied Social Security payments to which they’re legally entitled, or they’re denied Medicare payments. Or some grant recipient is denied the funds to which they have a contract and which were congressionally appropriated. And this can mean that people lose their jobs. It can mean that they don’t have money to put food on the table.”
Laird also questioned the use of an “unproven tool.”
“When you’re talking about this level of sensitive information, and at the scale we’re talking about, using it with a potentially unproven tool that we know can be inaccurate to make the highest stakes decisions. … I’ve never seen a tool like this to justify millions of dollars in funding cuts,” she said.
The bulk of the lawsuits challenging DOGE access rely on the Privacy Act of 1974, which lays out restrictions on who can access government data.
“Think about the state of data in 1974 when the Privacy Act was enacted, it’s so different than what it looks like now, and it is so much more sophisticated now. And the fact that we’re not even sure that what is happening now is consistent with what privacy looked like in the ’70s is really concerning,” Laird said.
“That’s why in the last two weeks there have been 12 lawsuits filed that alleged privacy violations.”
Critics have raised questions on the access being granted to DOGE workers. Government records access is limited to those who have “a need for the record” to carry out their duties.
“Traditionally, people within the government just don’t have unregulated access to that data. It’s very highly controlled and access to that data is limited and subject to clear and predictable rules. This is the breaking of those rules. And if you can break those rules … then you’re really breaking that trust in that system,” Butler said.
Suits against DOGE have scored limited wins, with access to the Treasury Department’s payment systems limited to one unpaid staffer affiliated with DOGE, Thomas Krause, as well as Senate-confirmed leaders such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
But in many cases, judges have declined to temporarily block DOGE staffers from accessing data as litigation continues.
A federal judge denied an effort by 14 Democratic-led states to put broad limitations on DOGE activities in a suit arguing Musk’s far-reaching role heading DOGE is unconstitutional because he was not confirmed by the Senate.
In that case, the government asserted Musk is not the head of DOGE, instead deeming him a White House adviser.
It’s a statement that could impact future litigation over DOGE.
“They’re really twisting themselves up into a pretzel with this,” said Butler.
“Does anyone have authority or not? Can [Musk] and his agents order people to do things or not? Who is in charge of this department of government efficiency? Is it a department, or is it not a department? Is there a command structure and structure of authority or not? And it’s just very muddy at this point.”
Musk has defended the work of DOGE while the White House has boasted of an alleged $55 billion in savings — a statistic that includes dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development and cutting thousands of government employees.
“If money is spent badly, if your taxpayer dollars are not spent in a sensible or critical manner, then that’s not OK. Your tax dollars need to be spent wisely, on things that matter,” Musk said in an Oval Office interview with reporters.
But Laird cautioned against taking that at face value.
“We’ve been operating in good faith that this is just about fraud, waste, abuse, but there’s nothing in the executive order that says that this access will only be used for those purposes. And so it’s something we’re watching and wondering,” she said.
“When you get access to someone without limitations on their youth, they will find other things to do with it.”
