Nineteen states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to stop Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive taxpayer information. The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, alleges that the move poses severe cybersecurity risks and violates federal law.
The lawsuit asserts that DOGE employees have been granted access to records held by the Bureau of Fiscal Service (BFS), which manages the federal government’s financial transactions. These records contain confidential data, including Social Security numbers, bank account information, and other personal financial details.
“This new expanded access policy poses huge cybersecurity risks that put vast amounts of funding for the States and their residents in peril,” the lawsuit states.
According to the legal filing, the attorneys general are seeking an immediate court order to prevent DOGE employees from accessing these records. The lawsuit argues that the data access breaches multiple federal statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act, and undermines the constitutional separation of powers by overstepping executive authority.
The lawsuit also raises concerns about the actions of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who reportedly modified longstanding data protection rules to allow DOGE employees access to sensitive taxpayer data. The state attorneys general claim that these changes violate Bessent’s legal obligation to protect the privacy of veterans, retirees, and taxpayers whose information is stored in Treasury databases.
“Allowing DOGE SGEs [special government employees] access to sensitive information lacked a rational basis and was unreasonable, particularly given the lack of transparency about DOGE’s members, their qualifications, security clearance, job duties, and the scope of their access,” the lawsuit states.
The states are particularly alarmed by the potential misuse of this data. The lawsuit warns that millions of residents across the 19 states could have their personal identifiable information compromised. Such a breach could lead to identity theft and other forms of exploitation.
A federal judge granted a temporary order on Wednesday barring DOGE employees from further accessing the BFS records. However, two employees tied to Musk’s department continue to hold “read-only” access to the data, pending further court proceedings.
During the court hearing, Judge Mary Jenkins questioned the rationale behind the data access policy. The administration’s attorneys struggled to provide evidence that the changes would improve government efficiency without compromising data security. “Why is this necessary at this moment?” Jenkins asked. “What protections are in place to prevent abuse?”
The Trump administration defended its actions, arguing that the changes are part of a broader effort to modernize government operations and reduce inefficiencies. However, critics see Musk’s involvement as emblematic of an overreach that prioritizes cost-cutting at the expense of privacy and security.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized the risks posed by this access. “This is about safeguarding the private information of millions of Americans,” Bonta said. “The federal government must protect that information, not expose it to unnecessary risks.”
The lawsuit also highlights concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding DOGE operations. State officials have questioned the qualifications and security clearance of DOGE employees. They argue that without proper oversight, the access granted to Musk’s team creates significant vulnerabilities in the nation’s financial infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Musk has dismissed the concerns raised in the lawsuit. In a series of social media posts, he characterized the lawsuit as politically motivated. “We’re trying to fix a broken system,” Musk wrote on X, his social media platform. “Efficiency is the enemy of bureaucracy.”
Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has been a polarizing force since its inception. While supporters credit him with pushing for much-needed reforms, critics argue that his aggressive approach has disrupted essential government services and eroded public trust.
“This isn’t just about data access,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren. “It’s about the integrity of our democratic institutions. We can’t allow private interests to gain unchecked influence over sensitive government operations.”
The lawsuit also underscores the broader tension between federal and state governments regarding the management of taxpayer data. States depend on federal funding and infrastructure to provide essential services. Any compromise of BFS data could disrupt the allocation of these funds, with potentially severe consequences for state budgets and programs.
“We’re talking about billions of dollars at stake,” said Dana Nessel, Michigan’s attorney general. “This data is tied to critical services, including Social Security payments, veterans’ benefits, and state funding allocations. We cannot afford to take these risks lightly.”
As the legal battle unfolds, both sides are preparing for a protracted fight. The states have vowed to press forward until DOGE’s access is fully revoked. The Trump administration, on the other hand, maintains that its actions are necessary to streamline government functions and eliminate inefficiencies.
Observers say the case could have far-reaching implications for privacy rights and the balance of power between federal and state governments. “This lawsuit is a critical test of how far the executive branch can go in reshaping government operations,” said Jacob Reinhart, a constitutional law expert. “The stakes are high for both sides.”
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for later this month. Until then, the temporary restraining order will remain in effect, limiting DOGE’s access to BFS records. In the meantime, state officials and privacy advocates are urging the federal government to restore stricter data protection measures.
“This is about more than just politics,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “It’s about protecting the privacy and security of every American whose data is held by the federal government. We won’t back down from this fight.”
