Supreme Court Grants DOGE Access to Social Security Data in Controversial Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 6 allowed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access personal data from the Social Security Administration (SSA), affecting millions of Americans, as part of an ongoing legal battle over privacy and government oversight.

The decision lifts a lower court injunction issued in April, granting DOGE temporary access to SSA records while the legality of that access is litigated in lower courts. The case stems from the Trump administration’s directive assigning DOGE to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in federal agencies, including the SSA.

Security logo | Source: Pexels

White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston hailed the decision as a step toward “commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems.” SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano added that the agency will “continue driving forward modernization efforts… for our beneficiaries.”

However, the ruling has drawn significant criticism from privacy advocates and plaintiffs including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Alliance for Retired Americans. Represented by Democracy Forward, the coalition warned the decision could lead to misuse of sensitive data.

“This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,” the coalition stated. “This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE’s affiliates to steal Americans’ private and personal data.”

Computer code | Source: Pexels

The SSA holds highly sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, health records, tax data, and employment history. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, DOGE has already accessed and, in some instances, shared this protected data publicly.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, criticized the ruling. “The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE’s access is lawful,” Jackson wrote.