Social Security privacy concerns mount as US Supreme Court authorises DOGE's access to data of millions of Americans

The US Supreme Court on Friday sided with the Trump administration in two critical decisions involving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The rulings allow DOGE broad access to personal records held by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and delay enforcement of transparency rules sought by a government watchdog group.

By a 6-3 vote, the conservative-majority court granted DOGE permission to access sensitive SSA databases containing the personal details of millions of Americans. This includes financial, educational and medical data.

The court also paused a lower court’s ruling requiring DOGE to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), allowing the administration to withhold internal documents about DOGE's operations.

Rising concerns over privacy and oversight

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented sharply, writing: “This court has now greenlit unfettered data access to DOGE regardless—despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards, and all before we know for sure whether federal law countenances such access.”

Her concerns were echoed by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Together, they warned that the court’s action posed “grave privacy risks” to millions of Americans.

The SSA holds data on anyone with a Social Security number, Medicare, or Supplemental Security Income. It administers $1.5 trillion in federal payments annually, distributing benefits to over 70 million recipients.

Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, said, “There is no way to overstate how serious a breach this is. And my understanding is that it has already occurred.”

Fallout after Musk’s departure from DOGE

Elon Musk, who once led DOGE, formally cut ties with the agency on 30 May. His split with President Trump became public shortly after, igniting tensions on social media. The two previously worked closely, with Trump assigning DOGE and Musk to investigate fraud within SSA.

In February, SSA’s acting commissioner Michelle King resigned after refusing to provide DOGE staff access to personal records. She stepped down after 30 years in government service, citing concerns over data misuse.

A day later, the White House said it had appointed a temporary “anti-fraud expert” to oversee SSA. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “They haven’t dug into the books yet, but they suspect that there are tens of millions of deceased people who are receiving fraudulent Social Security payments.”

Leavitt added the mission was to, “Number one, to identify duplicate payments and to end them. Number two, to identify payments that are going to deceased people who are no longer living and should no longer be receiving that money.

And number three, to protect the integrity of the system for hardworking Americans who have been paying into it their entire lives.”

Legal battle over Government transparency

In a separate ruling, the court also halted an order from Judge Christopher Cooper, who had instructed DOGE to comply with FOIA requests. The suit, filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), sought records about DOGE’s internal decision-making, particularly its role in mass federal layoffs and restructuring.

CREW argues that DOGE functions as a de facto government agency and must follow federal transparency laws. The administration insists DOGE is merely an advisory body and is therefore exempt.

Judge Cooper previously concluded that DOGE likely exercises “substantial independent authority” and ordered a deposition of DOGE official Amy Gleason. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit refused to block his order, prompting the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In its unsigned opinion, the court noted that Judge Cooper’s orders “are not appropriately tailored” and stressed that “judicial deference and restraint” were required in reviewing internal executive branch communications.

CREW responded in court filings that if the administration prevails, presidents could “create new entities that would functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws.”

DOGE has become a key tool in Trump’s broader plan to cut government spending and reduce federal workforce numbers. It has also faced mounting legal challenges from labour unions and advocacy groups.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer called earlier judicial rulings an “overreach” into executive power. However, critics argue that unchecked access and lack of oversight could result in lasting harm to public trust and data security.

Maryland District Judge Ellen Hollander, whose SSA data access restriction was overturned, earlier warned that DOGE’s search for fraud was a “fishing expedition.” Her order allowed only limited access to anonymised data unless DOGE could demonstrate a specific need.

Despite Friday’s rulings, the future of DOGE remains uncertain. With Musk gone and legal scrutiny intensifying, its role in reshaping federal oversight continues to spark debate over accountability, privacy, and the limits of executive power.