-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
A federal judge on Friday evening refused to block the Department of Labor from granting Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to confidential systems or from terminating employees who refuse to provide their credentials.
The ruling, which does not determine the legality of the access itself, marks a significant early victory for DOGE as it continues to expand its influence across federal agencies.
U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the plaintiffs, which include the AFL-CIO and several affiliated government employee unions, failed to demonstrate sufficient injury to establish legal standing in the case.
“This data includes the medical and financial records of millions of Americans,” Bates wrote. “But on the current record, plaintiffs have failed to establish standing. So although the Court harbors concerns about defendants’ alleged conduct, it must deny plaintiffs’ motion at this time.”
The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, argues that providing DOGE access to the Labor Department’s systems violates federal privacy laws and lacks legal justification.
It represents one of the first major legal challenges to Musk’s growing presence in government operations under President Donald Trump’s administration.
During a hearing earlier in the day, Judge Bates expressed skepticism about DOGE’s rapid expansion and the qualifications of its personnel handling sensitive information.
“A couple of people who, according to public reports, are very young, who have never been in the federal government, never had any training with respect to the handling of confidential information—you’re asking me to just put absolute confidence in the fact that nothing inappropriate will happen,” Bates said.
“Doesn’t seem to me to be a setup that would very easily give me confidence that there will be no misadventure,” he added, chuckling under his breath.
Despite his concerns, Bates ruled against the plaintiffs, citing their lack of standing rather than the legality of DOGE’s access itself. The decision leaves the door open for further legal challenges while allowing DOGE to proceed with its operations for the time being.
The ruling comes as Democratic state attorneys general and advocacy groups intensify their legal battles against DOGE’s growing role in the federal government.
On Friday, 19 Democratic attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging DOGE personnel’s access to Treasury Department systems, adding to an existing lawsuit targeting the agency’s involvement in financial operations.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the Labor Department case have indicated that they will expand their legal challenge to other agencies where DOGE has gained a foothold, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
They are also considering targeting the Department of Education but may defer to a separate lawsuit filed by Public Citizen on that front.
“We are here because of a fast-moving situation with a substantial amount of factual uncertainty,” Mark Samburg, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, a progressive legal advocacy group representing the unions, said during Friday’s hearing.
“What isn’t uncertain at this moment in time, Your Honor, is that the sensitive information of millions of people is currently at imminent risk of unlawful disclosure from the Department of Labor, but for this court’s rapid action,” he continued, emphasizing the urgency of the situation.
The Justice Department defended DOGE’s access, urging the judge to allow its operations to proceed and arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Government attorneys insisted that the access provided does not violate privacy laws or constitute a “final agency action” subject to judicial review.
“There’s no individual who has been identified as being harmed by these potential disclosures of unspecified systems,” said Justice Department attorney Michael Gerardi.
The controversy surrounding DOGE’s access to federal systems has sparked heated debate in Washington, with critics warning that it poses significant risks to government data security. DOGE, established under Trump’s directive to streamline bureaucracy, has rapidly embedded itself within multiple federal agencies, raising concerns about transparency and oversight.
Proponents argue that DOGE’s presence is necessary to improve efficiency within bloated government agencies, but opponents fear it could lead to breaches of sensitive information and unchecked influence over critical federal operations.
The legal challenges facing DOGE are expected to grow in the coming weeks as more lawsuits are filed and congressional oversight intensifies. While the Friday ruling represents a temporary win for DOGE, the broader legal and political battles surrounding its authority are far from over.
With multiple cases now in motion and resistance mounting from unions, Democratic officials, and advocacy groups, the future of DOGE’s role in the federal government remains uncertain.
The ruling from Judge Bates may have delayed immediate action against DOGE, but it has not quelled concerns over the agency’s rapid expansion and access to sensitive federal systems.
As the legal landscape evolves, both sides are preparing for a prolonged fight over the balance between government efficiency and the protection of personal data and privacy rights.
The outcome of these cases could have far-reaching implications for federal oversight, transparency, and the limits of executive power in restructuring government agencies.
