Trump, Musk Stir Controversy Over Massive Data Access
On March 24, 2025, former President Donald Trump convened a Cabinet meeting at the presidential residence. During this meeting, one of the focal points was the expanding authority of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk. The department was found to have accessed an incredible amount of data, personal details inclusive, of hundreds of millions of American citizens.
This collection of data includes private information such as home addresses, tax returns, and even medical histories from ordinary Social Security beneficiaries to government job applicants and federal employees past and present. Even judges who preside over disputes among government agencies, businesses, and individual citizens are found in this data compilation.
The DOGE’s intent with the massive store of data remains unclear, based on court filings. Lawyers representing the administration under Donald Trump have not provided an acceptable explanation as to why such data collection is necessary for the DOGE.
Not only does the DOGE’s access to this depth of personal information seem to be in direct violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, but it also has precipitated a series of litigation directed towards the department’s activities across government systems.
A noteworthy point is that DOGE does not merely possess information on American citizens, but also on individuals granted or having applied for Social Security numbers. This group extends to legal immigrants, as delineated in court documents.
There seems to be a loophole that the Trump administration discovered to evade concerns regarding the Privacy Act. Certain DOGE personnel were tactically designated as employees in government offices to go around these issues.
The information that judges provide in the background checks they undergo ends up in the store of data that the DOGE can access. This data also incorporates extensive details about judges’ family members and their close acquaintances.
However, uncertainty lingers about what sorts of fraudulent activities the DOGE seeks to uncover in the data they have on 20 million government workforce members. As one party claimed, the purpose of bettering the workforce or enhancing IT infrastructure does not necessitate the disclosure of private information such as their Social Security number, health reports, or family details.
Our sources note that this very data was once the objective of hacking attempts carried out by Chinese cybercriminals on the Office of Personnel Management’s databases back in 2015. Despite this, Elon Musk, his party in the White House, and Republican congress members continue to assert that the DOGE’s mission is merely to get rid of ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ within government agencies.
Yet, a rising number of groups are voicing concerns that the DOGE is primarily conducting a large-scale data collection operation aimed at penalizing those who oppose Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s political agendas and those among the vulnerable populations.
Musk’s organization could potentially extend its information-gathering activities with the sanctioning of an order titled ‘Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of Elections.’ This order gives DOGE the ability to subpoena voter rolls from states to track down ineligible voters.
This data collection could indirectly advantage Musk, who is said to have ‘a high incentive to gain all this data to further his business interests.’ Observers have thus speculated the importance of understanding the economic incentives in understanding Musk’s activities.
Some have openly called out the possibility that DOGE’s information collection is a segment of the Trump administration’s mission to create a catalogue of individuals who oppose Trump and his policies.
These fears are not unfounded, as indicators suggesting this possibility are emerging daily. As one account quotes, ‘At the present moment, it’s legal immigrants being disappeared off the streets.’
With this scenario panning out, it is alarming to think that such a fate could extend to citizens. Thus, concerns continue to surge about how obtaining such data can aid in enforcing these actions.