Judge Cote found that OPM did not provide a credible reason why DOGE needed access to such data, which included employee records, background checks, medical files, and banking information. She wrote that the defendants “barely defend its legality, relying instead on what has happened since to argue that the case is moot and that prospective relief is unnecessary.”
The Department of Justice, representing OPM, had argued in previous court filings that DOGE agents required the data as part of workforce modernization efforts. However, Judge Cote noted that previous government modernization initiatives had not required access to such information, and the administration never connected the data access to DOGE agents’ responsibilities.
The judge also rejected the government’s argument that the lawsuit was moot because DOGE is no longer a centralized entity. While DOGE agents have had access to OPM data since September 2025, one former agent is not employed at OPM, she said. The ruling did not specify a final remedy for the case.
Musk assembled DOGE in the first days of the second Trump administration, saying the advisory group would root out waste, fraud, and abuse. DOGE claims to have saved $215 billion in cancelled contracts and reduced the federal workforce by approximately 300,000 workers. However, former federal employees, including former IRS acting Commissioner Douglas O’Donnell, have warned that sweeping cuts will hinder the government’s ability to improve efficiency through technology.
A coalition of unions, including the AFL-CIO, filed a lawsuit against DOGE and the Department of Labor in February 2025 challenging the advisory group’s access to private information. Musk justified the access in a Fox News interview last February, saying government databases “don’t talk to each other” and that reconciling them would improve efficiency and reduce fraud.
Policy experts have raised concerns about cybersecurity and privacy risks. Elizabeth Laird, director of equity in civic technology at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told Fortune that amassing such information would give the federal government “unprecedented power and control” and that even if legally permissible, the data sharing could still be a security threat.