DOGE Won’t Leak Government Data – The Bureaucracy Already Did

The lawsuits against DOGE rest on a flimsy premise: that allowing Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency access to federal data presents an existential threat to privacy and national security. Yet, these same plaintiffs and judges—almost uniformly aligned with the Democratic Party—have turned a blind eye to real, systemic data breaches that have compromised the personal and financial information of millions of Americans. The contrast could not be starker: while DOGE’s access is hamstrung over hypothetical risks, the federal government has hemorrhaged sensitive information through negligence, incompetence and outright criminal acts, often without any meaningful accountability.

Consider the staggering breach of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in 2015, when Chinese hackers infiltrated federal systems, exfiltrating detailed background check data on over 22 million current and former government employees. This included Social Security numbers, addresses, financial histories and even information on employees’ family members. This breach was not theoretical; it was a catastrophic failure that placed thousands at risk of identity theft, blackmail and espionage. Yet, OPM’s bureaucratic inertia continued unimpeded, with no significant overhaul of federal cybersecurity. Fast forward to 2023, and the IRS suffered another massive internal breach—not from external hackers, but from one of its own. Charles Littlejohn, a government contractor, illegally accessed and leaked the tax returns of Donald Trump, Elon Musk and countless other high-net-worth individuals to left-wing media outlets. His five-year sentence is cold comfort given the irreversible violation of privacy. Where was the righteous indignation from the very judges and plaintiffs now waging war against DOGE? They had no interest in reigning in the IRS when it was weaponized to embarrass political opponents.

Contrast these blatant failures with the supposed transgressions of DOGE. The lawsuits claim that allowing Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to access federal records—personnel files, student loan data, tax information—somehow constitutes an unprecedented overreach. The argument is as disingenuous as it is flimsy. DOGE is not a third party; it is a federal agency staffed by federal employees, operating within the lawful authority of the executive branch. Other federal agencies routinely share data internally for audits, compliance reviews and operational improvements. The IRS itself processes tax returns with federal employees and contractors. The Social Security Administration collaborates with other agencies to modernize its infrastructure. Yet, when a reform-minded administration seeks to analyze inefficiencies, suddenly access becomes an apocalyptic privacy crisis.

The partisan nature of the litigation is undeniable. Judge Deborah L. Boardman, a Biden appointee, issued an immediate restraining order against DOGE’s access to OPM records, citing supposed violations of the Privacy Act. This same judge showed no such urgency when the personal data of government employees was compromised in past breaches. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee, blocked DOGE’s access to IRS and Treasury records under the dubious pretense that sharing financial data with an oversight agency was an unlawful disclosure. If these judges were as concerned about government overreach as they pretend to be, they would have halted the Biden administration’s massive expansion of IRS enforcement power or the systematic abuse of surveillance laws that have continually eroded Americans’ privacy rights. Instead, they are leveraging the courts to obstruct reform, ensuring that fraud, waste, and abuse remain embedded within federal agencies.

The hypocrisy extends beyond the judiciary to the plaintiffs themselves. The American Federation of Government Employees, a union notorious for shielding underperforming bureaucrats, is leading the charge against DOGE’s access to personnel data. Their objection? That reviewing employee records might expose inefficiencies and redundancies within the federal workforce. Likewise, the Alliance for Retired Americans, in conjunction with left-leaning public interest groups, argues that allowing DOGE access to Treasury records could result in an “unprecedented intrusion into individuals’ privacy.” This is an audacious claim given that the Treasury itself was recently breached in the MOVEit data hack, which saw millions of financial records fall into the hands of Russian cybercriminals. That breach, unlike DOGE’s lawful data requests, actually compromised individuals’ privacy in a profound and material way.

Then there is the lawsuit filed by the University of California Student Association, which seeks to block DOGE’s access to Department of Education student loan records. The premise? That analyzing federal loan data could somehow put borrowers at risk. Yet, in 2022, the Department of Education itself inadvertently exposed student loan information through a misconfigured database, an error that resulted in personal financial data being accessible to unauthorized parties. No legal challenge ensued. No emergency court injunction was sought. Instead, the agency quietly moved on, as federal bureaucracies always do after a self-inflicted scandal.

The reality is that the lawsuits against DOGE have nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with political lawfare. The Biden-appointed judges and left-wing activist groups bringing these cases are not concerned with protecting Americans from data breaches; they are concerned with protecting entrenched government waste from scrutiny. The same people hyperventilating about Musk’s team accessing federal databases were silent when Chinese operatives plundered sensitive government files. They had no problem when insider leaks at the IRS targeted political adversaries. They took no action when student loan data was mishandled by bureaucrats. But now, when an administration is trying to root out inefficiency, suddenly privacy is sacrosanct.

The selective outrage is transparent. If the courts were consistent, they would demand the same level of accountability from federal agencies that they now seek to impose on DOGE. They would scrutinize the real, ongoing breaches that have already put millions of Americans at risk rather than entertaining speculative fears about potential misuse. The legal arguments marshaled against DOGE amount to bureaucratic self-preservation masquerading as constitutional concern. The judges enabling these lawsuits are not neutral arbiters but partisan operatives waging lawfare to obstruct reform.

The contrast is too glaring to ignore. On one side, a reform-minded administration is seeking access to government data for the purpose of eliminating fraud, abuse and inefficiency. On the other, a judiciary and activist class aligned with the Democratic Party is weaponizing the legal system to shield the very agencies responsible for repeated and catastrophic data failures. The message is clear: protecting government corruption is a higher priority than protecting Americans’ data. This is not about privacy. It’s about power.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Trump’s Appeal For A Stronger Continental Defense Doesn’t Go Far Enough