DOGE Access to Government Personnel Data Blocked by Judge (1)

A federal judge temporarily blocked the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to Office of Personnel Management data, saying OPM broke the law and cybersecurity protocol by allowing access to sensitive information.

While scope of the preliminary injunction from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York was not immediately clear, it was another inflection point in the battle over DOGE’s access to government data. The case will likely be settled by the US Supreme Court, which on Friday permitted DOGE to access sensitive Social Security information.

Judge Denise Cote, a Clinton appointee, ordered DOGE agents to “impound and destroy” personal information related to the union plaintiffs. She said the plaintiffs, led by the American Federation of Government Employees, will likely win their argument that DOGE violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

The unions demonstrated at least two Privacy Act violations, she said. Plaintiffs had cited reports that DOGE gained access to Social Security numbers and personnel files.

The OPM maintains data on millions of federal workers, including sensitive information that DOGE opponents say could be weaponized by foreign governments, terrorist groups, and other bad actors. In 2015, hackers breached the office and stole personal data for more than 22 million people.

“Today’s legal victory sends a crystal-clear message: Americans’ private data stored with the government isn’t the personal playground of unelected billionaires,” AFGE President Everett Kelley said in a statement.

OPM spokespeople didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The high court has shown a willingness to side with DOGE in records cases. On Friday, the conservative majority also clawed back a lower court order that allowed a watchdog group to access DOGE records as part of a lawsuit over the agency’s transparency requirements under the Freedom of Information Act.

The case is AFGE v. OPM, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:25-cv-01237, preliminary injunction 6/9/25.