Treasury Department Sued Over DOGE’s Access to Federal Payment System

The U.S. Treasury Department is facing a lawsuit from multiple advocacy groups over its decision to grant access to the federal payment system to officials from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a controversial agency overseen by tech billionaire Elon Musk.

The lawsuit was filed by the Public Citizen Litigation Group, State Democracy Defenders Fund, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the Service Employees International Union.

The plaintiffs argue that the Treasury Department improperly shared confidential financial and personal data with DOGE officials, violating federal laws designed to protect such information.

“The Department of Treasury maintains the sensitive personal and financial information of millions of Americans, and federal laws protect such data from improper disclosure and misuse, including by barring disclosure to individuals who lack a lawful and legitimate need for it,” the coalition said in a statement.

Concerns over the situation intensified after reports surfaced that Musk’s allies, working with DOGE, were granted access to Treasury’s federal payment system over the weekend.

This development sparked outcry from Democratic lawmakers and watchdog groups, who view it as a violation of privacy and a potential misuse of government resources.

The Treasury Department handles approximately $6 trillion annually, distributing funds for critical programs such as Social Security and Medicare, federal employee salaries, payments to contractors and grant recipients, and tax refunds.

Critics fear that DOGE’s involvement in managing these funds could lead to politically motivated financial decisions and the mishandling of sensitive data.

The controversy comes after David Lebryk, a top nonpolitical career official at the Treasury Department, announced his resignation last week. Lebryk had reportedly clashed with Musk’s allies over their push for access to federal financial systems.

His departure raised further concerns about the extent of DOGE’s influence and its alignment with President Donald Trump’s policy agenda.

Defending their actions, DOGE officials claim that their primary mission is to ensure government spending aligns with Trump’s priorities. They argue that reviewing financial data is essential to eliminating waste and improving efficiency within federal agencies.

However, Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups have rejected this reasoning, warning that the unprecedented access granted to DOGE could result in the misuse of confidential taxpayer information.

Some critics worry that the agency’s role could extend beyond financial oversight into targeted political decision-making.

Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, condemned the move in a statement, calling it an unlawful breach of privacy.

“We are outraged and alarmed that the Trump administration has allowed so-called DOGE staff to violate the law and access millions of older Americans’ sensitive personal and financial data,” Fiesta said. “We urge the court to quickly act to stop this unlawful theft of our data.”

The legal battle over DOGE’s role and the Treasury Department’s actions is expected to escalate in the coming weeks.

While Trump’s administration continues to defend its decision, arguing that the agency is necessary to ensure fiscal responsibility, opponents see it as a dangerous overreach that threatens the integrity of federal financial systems.

As the lawsuit proceeds, the case could set a significant precedent regarding government transparency, data privacy, and executive power. The outcome may determine whether DOGE continues to wield influence over federal financial operations or whether the courts will step in to limit its authority.

With billions of taxpayer dollars and vast amounts of personal financial information at stake, the debate over DOGE’s role in the federal government is far from over.

As watchdog groups, lawmakers, and legal experts weigh in, the situation is likely to remain a flashpoint in the broader discussion of Trump’s governance and the influence of figures like Musk in shaping federal policy.