White House adviser Elon Musk at a Cabinet meeting at the White House. Musk, who is also the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, leads the Department of Government Efficiency, which seeks to access data from across the government in order to identify waste, fraud, and abuse.
Access to Social Security Administration databases, containing sensitive financial and personal information of millions, is limited to fewer than 50 individuals.
However, only one of these individuals has access to the government’s human resources and student loan files.
Akash Bobba is among Department of Government Efficiency staff who have gained significant access to sensitive data across federal agencies in recent months, with the aim of identifying government inefficiencies. The team, led by Elon Musk, claims to be searching for signs of misconduct and waste.
Bobba is part of the group whose access has drawn scrutiny. Federal judges have raised concerns, suggesting that their access violates privacy laws and that proper training to handle sensitive data has not been provided.
In a recent ruling, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander criticized the government for failing to justify the unrestricted access given to the DOGE team, which “exposes personal and confidential information that millions of Americans have entrusted to their government.”
Judge Hollander noted that instead of a focused approach to modernizing the system and uncovering fraud, the DOGE’s sweeping access to protected data was excessive.
A review of legal documents reveals a troubling trend across various agencies, where DOGE has provided inconsistent information about the data accessed and the reasons for that access.
“No need to know”
When the DOGE initiative was established, it mandated agencies to form dedicated teams with full access to unclassified records while adhering to stringent data protection standards.
Legal filings indicate agencies rushed to grant DOGE access without ensuring proper safeguards or documentation of its activities.
A federal judge recently paused DOGE from accessing personal information of union members in a case against several agencies, ruling that private data was improperly shared with individuals who had no legitimate reason for access.
Judge Deborah L. Boardman stated, “No matter how important or urgent the President’s DOGE agenda may be, federal agencies must execute it in accordance with the law,” adding that compliance was likely not met.
In the Social Security Administration case, Hollander highlighted that many DOGE staff were granted access to systems before their background checks and agreements were finalized.
Bobba, who gained access to the comprehensive database at the SSA which includes extensive personal information, was supposed to conduct his duties from agency headquarters but reportedly worked off-site, raising further privacy concerns.
Government officials have struggled to provide clarity on when and how DOGE employees obtained access privileges to sensitive databases. Conflicts in their accounts have been noted in legal proceedings.
Concerns have been amplified following revelations that former DOGE employee Marko Elez had inappropriate access to sensitive data and shared personal identifiable information with unauthorized individuals.
Judges have expressed alarm over the rushed granting of access, with one ruling emphasizing potential violations of federal law due to sharing sensitive information.
Congress warned against this — a half-century ago
The Privacy Act of 1974 highlighted the dangers of federal collection of personal data, with lawmakers warning against the potential misuse of such information by government personnel.
Despite historical concerns, the current DOGE initiative under Musk appears to disregard these protections, raising alarms about the mishandling of sensitive personal data.
The White House has not responded to inquiries regarding compliance with privacy laws or public concerns over DOGE’s access levels.
If you have further information regarding DOGE’s access to government databases, please reach out to us directly.
