Over a Dozen Lawsuits Challenge DOGE’s Access to Personal Data
Podcast: Consider This from NPR
Host: Ailsa Chang
Episode Title: Over a dozen lawsuits to stop DOGE data access are betting on a 1974 law
Release Date: March 13, 2025
Introduction: The Rise of DOGE and Data Concerns
In the March 13, 2025 episode of Consider This, Ailsa Chang delves into the contentious efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an agency established under President Trump. DOGE has been at the center of controversy not only for its significant staff reductions across federal agencies but also for its aggressive pursuit of access to vast amounts of personal data held by the U.S. government.
Chang opens the discussion by highlighting the types of sensitive information DOGE seeks, emphasizing the potential risks associated with such access.
Ailsa Chang [00:00]: “Date of birth, home address, Social Security number. I mean, these are just a few examples of some of the personal information that the US Government collects on most of us and stores in databases across federal agencies.”
The Scope of Personal Data Accessed by DOGE
Elizabeth Lair, director of the Equity and Civic Technology Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, provides an in-depth analysis of the breadth and sensitivity of the data DOGE is aiming to access.
Elizabeth Lair [00:35]: “The level of sensitivity of the information that we're talking about is really unprecedented, and it is the most sensitive information that people provide about themselves.”
Lair explains that DOGE's access isn't limited to basic identifiers but extends to comprehensive demographic details, financial records, and even personal life events such as marriages, divorces, and medical conditions.
Elizabeth Lair [00:51]: “It will include demographics about you, so your race, your sex, even if you have a disability... major life events that you've had. So whether you were pregnant and gave birth to a child or you adopted a child or you got married or divorced... things that maybe your closest friends and family don't even know are included in these systems.”
Implications for Veterans and Sensitive Health Data
Jonathan Cummins, a seasoned software engineer and cybersecurity expert with over 30 years of experience, sheds light on the specific concerns related to veterans' data housed within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Jonathan Cummins [02:05]: “If you are a veteran that's getting medical care from VA, your medical data is stored in VA databases... therapy notes... opioid addiction information...”
Cummins, who was recently dismissed from the US Digital Service along with 40 others, voices his apprehension about DOGE's potential access to highly sensitive medical and financial information stored by agencies like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.
Legal Battle: Invoking the Privacy Act of 1974
The core of the episode revolves around the legal challenges mounting against DOGE’s data access efforts. More than a dozen lawsuits have been filed, leveraging the Privacy Act of 1974 as their primary legal foundation.
Chang introduces Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Virginia, to provide historical context and analyze the relevance of the Privacy Act in the current scenario.
Ailsa Chang [05:15]: “Before we talk about these lawsuits, can you just take us back to the mid-1970s? How did the Privacy Act of 1974 even come about?”
Danielle Citron [05:27]: “...the National Crime Information center had an incredible amount of sensitive information... files were being shared across agencies without any safeguards... there was heated agreement across the aisle that we worried that it gave government a lot of power, excessive power that could control us.”
Citron elaborates on how the Privacy Act was designed to curb governmental overreach in data handling, ensuring that personal information is collected and used strictly for legitimate purposes with appropriate safeguards.
Current Lawsuits and Their Arguments
The lawsuits challenging DOGE’s data access are spearheaded by privacy groups and legal representatives advocating for both government employees and individuals whose data is at risk.
Danielle Citron [07:41]: “Privacy groups and attorneys are representing employees of the government and individuals whose data is collected in these systems of records that are protected by the Privacy Act... they're arguing that there's real harm here. They're losing their jobs...”
The plaintiffs assert that DOGE's access to personal data violates the Privacy Act's stipulations, which mandate that data provided to federal agencies must be used solely for its intended purpose and not exploited beyond those confines.
Danielle Citron [07:41]: “...we need to figure out in discovery if the loss of those jobs have to do with being in the databases... asserting that the Privacy act is sacred... you gave [your] data to them and you trusted the government with that information.”
Administration’s Defense and Misinterpretations
The Trump administration defends DOGE's actions by claiming that the agency's access to data is essential for identifying and eliminating fraud, waste, and inefficiency within federal operations.
Danielle Citron [08:36]: “The Trump administration is arguing that the DOGE employees... have every right to go into these systems of records to check for fraud, waste.”
However, Citron criticizes this stance as a fundamental misinterpretation of the Privacy Act, emphasizing that access to sensitive data should be tightly controlled and limited to specific, authorized purposes.
Danielle Citron [08:52]: “It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the Privacy act that if they worked at the Department of Education, they couldn't get into records that include, you know, personal data unless it was part of their job.”
Potential Outcomes and Democratic Implications
The episode concludes with a discussion on the broader implications of the legal battle, particularly the resilience of democratic institutions and the rule of law. Citron raises concerns about the administration's willingness to comply with judicial rulings.
Danielle Citron [09:47]: “...it may just say, sorry, I'm not going to comply with the court order. And I think at that moment... it's really testing our confidence in democracy and the rule of law.”
Chang echoes these concerns, underscoring the precarious balance between governmental efficiency and the protection of individual privacy rights.
Conclusion
As DOGE continues its push for access to sensitive personal data, the suite of lawsuits invoking the Privacy Act of 1974 represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over privacy, governmental authority, and individual rights. The outcome of these legal challenges could have far-reaching consequences for data privacy and the limits of governmental oversight in the digital age.
Notable Contributions:
- Danielle Citron: Law Professor at the University of Virginia
- Jonathan Cummins: Former Software Engineer and Cybersecurity Professional at VA.gov
Production Credits:
- Producer: Katherine Fink
- Contributors: Laurel Wamsley, Jeanette Woods, Nadia Lancy
- Executive Producer: Sami Yenigun
This summary captures the essence of the NPR Consider This episode, providing a comprehensive overview of the key discussions surrounding DOGE's data access and the ensuing legal battles grounded in the Privacy Act of 1974.