By Jay Speer, Executive Director, Virginia Poverty Law Center

The “DOGE boys” may have gotten access to your medical files, financial information, your Social Security number, and your address.  Is that OK with you?  The US Department of Justice thinks it is no big deal but thankfully the judge in a case brought by VPLC and others does think it is a grave concern.

“Soon after President Trump issued Executive Order 14158 on January 20th, creating the United States DOGE Service, individuals at the Department of Labor (“DOL”) and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) began ….seeking and gaining access to data systems that hold caches of Americans’ personal information, including medical files, financial histories, social security numbers (“SSNs”), addresses, and more. Yet the agencies did not notify any American that the individuals working on the DOGE Agenda—whom the Court will call DOGE Affiliates—were viewing their information.”

As a result, a host of unions and nonprofits (including VPLC) sued, alleging among other things that the agencies are violating the Privacy Act of 1974 by granting DOGE Affiliates access to their Americans’ data without consent.

VPLC and the other plaintiffs in this case are still litigating this case but we recently suffered a setback.  Although the judge in this case agrees that allowing access to our data is of grave concern, he was not prepared to issue a preliminary injunction at this time.

“Absent evidence those personnel will imminently misuse or publicly disclose that information, the Court cannot say that irreparable harm will clearly occur before the Court can make a final determination on the merits. This conclusion does not mean the harm the members face is insubstantial or that the Court harbors no concern that DOGE Affiliates have their hands on some of the most personal information individuals entrust to the government. To the contrary, the Court’s concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs’ harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits. At this time, however, the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction is not warranted. “

The judge also rejected (again) the government’s argument that Americans gave up their right to privacy by sharing information with the government.  That would be like saying “ that  a person doesn’t have a privacy interest in, say, their medical records just because they shared them with their doctor’s office.”

VPLC and the other plaintiffs in this case will continue to litigate this case to hold these data pirates accountable for violating federal privacy law.