Labor groups sue Social Security, DOGE over access to ‘unfathomable amount of data’

Three labor groups sued the Social Security Administration in federal court in Maryland Friday night over access to private data it granted to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers and the Alliance for Retired Americans sued Social Security, Acting Secretary Leland Dudek and DOGE. They allege violations of the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and more.

“(Social Security has) given access to an unfathomable amount of data, without identifying the source of its authority to do so, and without providing any analysis whatsoever of why its decision is not arbitrary and capricious,” the complaint states.

“This is not just an unprecedented data grab. It is an unprecedented power grab.”

Musk — the world’s richest man and owner of Tesla, SpaceX and X — has spread unproven assertions and disinformation  about Social Security in recent weeks, claiming widespread waste, fraud and abuse in its distribution of benefits. His claims have been rebutted by a senior agency leader.

The agency, responsible for direct payments to more than 70 million Americans, is headquartered in Woodlawn, just outside of Baltimore.

The suit is the latest in a wave of litigation against DOGE, which was created by executive order and has torn through several government agencies, causing the termination of thousands of employees and accessing vast amounts of sensitive data.

DOGE has had mixed results in court, as some judges have sought to restrict its access to government data while others have declined to do so.

A federal judge in Manhattan on Friday extended a restriction on DOGE’s access to payment systems at the Treasury Department after issuing a preliminary injunction earlier this month. That case was brought by 19 Democratic states, including Maryland. According to reports, the Treasury Department was warned that DOGE’s access to its data represented an “unprecedented insider threat risk.”

On Monday, a Maryland judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Education Department and the Office of Personnel Management, prohibiting them from sharing data with DOGE. But that ruling in Maryland followed one last week in Washington, D.C., in which a judge sided with DOGE in a similar case about Education Department and OPM data, declining a university student association’s request for a temporary restraining order.

All of the cases are ongoing.

Dudek’s predecessor, Michelle King, resigned this month after refusing to grant DOGE access to its records, according to the Washington Post.

Dudek, who had been a mid-level Social Security employee in its anti-fraud division, was tapped to run the agency just days after he was placed on leave for cooperating with DOGE, according to CNN.

“I confess. I helped DOGE understand SSA. I mailed myself publically accessible documents and explained them (to) DOGE,” he wrote in a since-deleted LinkedIn post, CNN reported. “I confess. I moved contractor money around to add data science resources to my anti-fraud team to examine Direct Deposit Fraud.”

“I confess. I bullied agency executives, shared executive contact information, and circumvented the chain of command to connect DOGE with the people who get stuff done,” he wrote.

In a statement, Dudek, who is running the agency until a permanent successor is confirmed by the Senate, said the agency’s priority is paying people on time. He added “DOGE personnel must follow the law.”

“DOGE personnel CANNOT make changes to agency systems, benefit payments, or other information,” he stated. “They only have READ access.”

A spokesperson for Dudek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The labor groups, represented by Democracy Forward, say any access to taxpayers’ personal information, much of which is in Social Security’s hands, is illegal.

“Never before, or, at least, aside from Watergate, has a White House demonstrated such a fundamental disregard for the privacy protections that Congress and the Executive Branch have put into place to protect the data of and about Americans.”