Judge Declines Request to Prevent DOGE from Accessing Labor, Health, and CFPB Data

A federal judge ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can continue reviewing data from select executive agencies, rejecting a request to temporarily block its access.

On February 14, U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington denied a motion from unions and nonprofit groups seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent DOGE from obtaining records from the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

In his decision, Judge Bates stated that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate a strong likelihood of success in their claims. Their argument focused on the assertion that DOGE’s data access practices were unlawful because they were implemented without proper regulatory procedures or legal authorization.

Unions Challenge DOGE’s Access to Sensitive Data

The AFL-CIO and other labor organizations contended that allowing DOGE personnel access to confidential records violated the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. They argued that federal agencies were improperly granting access to DOGE-affiliated staff, despite DOGE not meeting the definition of an agency employee under the Privacy Act’s data-sharing regulations.

The plaintiffs also maintained that the Trump administration’s establishment of DOGE lacked the necessary regulatory approvals, making its policies noncompliant with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Government Defends DOGE’s Authority

Attorneys for the Trump administration countered these claims by asserting that DOGE personnel are legally entitled to access such records under the Economy Act, which allows for the temporary assignment of employees between federal agencies. They also pointed out that DOGE operates similarly to other federal agencies that facilitate interagency staff transfers. However, they refrained from explicitly defining DOGE as an agency under broader legal statutes like the Privacy Act.

DOGE was officially created through an executive order by former President Trump, repurposing the U.S. Digital Service into the U.S. DOGE Service. Its mission is to improve government efficiency by modernizing technology and enhancing data integrity. The order directs DOGE to collaborate with various agencies to streamline operations and reduce waste.

Judge Calls Legal Question "Novel and Complex"

Judge Bates acknowledged that the case presents a complex legal question, but agreed with the government’s stance that DOGE is authorized to assign personnel to other departments.

“This is a novel and complex legal issue. There is limited case law on how the Economy Act defines an agency,” Bates wrote. He noted that existing legal precedents do not strongly support the plaintiffs’ claim that DOGE is not an agency. If DOGE is indeed classified as an agency, it would have the authority to assign personnel under the Economy Act, which would undercut the plaintiffs’ Privacy Act argument.

While the judge denied the TRO, he observed an inconsistency in the government’s position—DOGE is treated as an agency when it is advantageous but not when it would be subject to transparency laws.

Bates emphasized that further legal analysis is necessary to clarify DOGE’s status and directed both parties to propose a timeline for reviewing the possibility of a longer-term injunction.

Meanwhile, on the same day as this ruling, a judge in Manhattan extended a separate restraining order preventing DOGE from accessing Treasury Department payment systems.