The entrance of the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building as activists organized a rally and demonstration against Elon Musk outside the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in Washington D.C., on Feb. 3, 2025. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
"In brief, the OPM records at issue concern the plaintiffs’ most sensitive private affairs," the opinion says. "They include social security numbers, health care information, banking information, and information about family members. For some people, disclosure of information in OPM systems could subject them to danger."
An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Cotes said plaintiffs "have shown they are entitled to" a preliminary injunction, which "would stop disclosure of OPM records to individuals associated with DOGE and require the destruction of any copies of personal information that have been obtained through such disclosure."
"The plaintiffs have shown that the defendants disclosed OPM records to individuals who had no legal right of access to those records," Cotes wrote. "In doing so, the defendants violated the Privacy Act and departed from cybersecurity standards that they are obligated to follow. This was a breach of law and of trust. Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs."
The judge further criticized the Trump administration's handling of OPM records.
"The Government could have acknowledged that in its rush to accomplish a new President’s agenda mistakes were made and established, important protocols were overlooked. It has not," Cote wrote. "The Government has defended this lawsuit by repeatedly invoking a mantra that it adhered to all established procedures and safeguards. It did not. Without a full-throated recognition that the law and established cybersecurity procedures must be followed, the risk of irreparable harm will continue to exist."
In a May hearing, Justice Department lawyers reportedly argued that any preliminary injunction granted should include exceptions for high-level OPM officials and cited how a separate judge had walked back initial restrictions placed on DOGE access to Treasury Department records in February so long as DOGE staffers have the appropriate training and vetting, according to the Federal News Network.
The White House on June 3, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE’s efforts at Social Security amounted to a "fishing expedition" based on "little more than suspicion" of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans’ private information at risk.
Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need.
The Trump administration has said DOGE cannot work effectively with those restrictions.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Danielle Wallace is a breaking news and politics reporter at Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to danielle.wallace@fox.com and on X: @danimwallace.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-restricts-doge-access-federal-databases-finding-breach-law-trust