19 Attorneys General Sue DOGE Over Massive Data Breach and Unauthorized Access to Americans’ Private Information
The Trump administration is facing legal heat as 19 attorneys general, led by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and the U.S. Treasury. The lawsuit takes aim at what is being described as one of the most significant threats to Americans’ private data in history: the unauthorized access given to Elon Musk and the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). The lawsuit asserts that the administration’s actions are illegal and threaten the privacy and financial security of millions of Americans.
At the heart of the controversy is the decision by the Trump administration to grant Musk and DOGE access to the Treasury Department’s central payment system, operated by the Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS). This system handles sensitive financial transactions critical to federal programs like Social Security, veteran benefits, Medicare, and Medicaid, as well as state programs supporting public safety, education, and infrastructure. According to the lawsuit, the access Musk has been granted includes highly sensitive personal information such as bank account details and Social Security numbers.
Attorney General Tong did not mince words in expressing the gravity of the situation: “This is the largest data breach in American history. DOGE is an unlawfully constituted band of renegade tech bros combing through confidential records, sensitive data, and critical payment systems. What could go wrong?” Tong warned of the potential risks, including unauthorized deletion of files and alterations to payment codes. “We have no idea what they are doing with this information or whether the world’s richest man is using this to further enrich himself and his companies,” he added.
Musk’s access to BFS could allow him and DOGE to block federal funds from reaching state programs that provide essential services like healthcare and childcare. In what Tong described as a “rebellion from within,” the lawsuit argues that Musk’s actions and DOGE’s influence could undermine critical programs Americans rely on daily. Musk himself has reportedly referred to his actions as the “Second American Revolution,” a framing Tong dismissed as dangerous and unlawful.
The issue stems from a policy change enacted on February 2, 2025, by the Trump administration’s Treasury Department. This change classified Musk and members of DOGE as “special government employees,” granting them access to the BFS’s payment system. By law, access to BFS is supposed to be restricted to highly vetted career civil servants with appropriate security clearances. The lawsuit asserts that the Treasury’s new policy violates federal law, creates a major national security risk, and gives unauthorized political appointees the ability to manipulate federal funds at will.
The implications of the access granted to Musk and DOGE go beyond individual privacy breaches. The BFS system controls the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funds to states. The attorneys general argue that unauthorized access to this system could allow Musk and his team to freeze or redirect funds in violation of constitutional protections.
Attorney General Tong and the coalition are demanding an immediate injunction to block the Treasury Department’s policy and prevent Musk and DOGE from accessing BFS. They are also seeking a legal declaration that the policy change is both unlawful and unconstitutional.
The coalition of attorneys general suing alongside Tong includes officials from 18 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Together, they are using every legal avenue to protect Americans’ personal data and prevent potential abuses of power.
“This lawsuit is about protecting the integrity of our government and safeguarding the sensitive personal information of every American,” Tong stated. “We won’t stand by and let unauthorized individuals exploit government systems for personal gain or political revenge.”
Synopsis of the Legal Issues, Arguments, and Merits of the Lawsuit
Legal Issues
This lawsuit, filed by a coalition of states against Donald J. Trump, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, focuses on the legality of granting the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to sensitive government payment systems. The key legal issues involve:
- Unauthorized Access to Sensitive Data: The central complaint is that DOGE, led by Elon Musk and others, was given expanded access to the Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) systems containing sensitive personal and financial information, violating privacy and security regulations.
- Violation of Federal Laws: The lawsuit alleges violations of the Privacy Act, the E-Government Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and other federal statutes related to safeguarding financial systems and data confidentiality.
- Constitutional Violations: The plaintiffs argue that the expanded access policy violates the separation of powers and the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing unauthorized political appointees to interfere with congressionally appropriated funds.
Key Arguments
- Unlawful Expansion of Access: The plaintiffs argue that granting DOGE and its associates access to BFS payment systems exceeds statutory authority and violates federal data protection laws. The Treasury’s payment systems manage federal disbursements, including Social Security benefits, veteran payments, and Medicaid funds—key lifelines for millions of Americans.
- Treasury violated the Privacy Act and other regulations by failing to ensure that those granted access had a legitimate need and proper security clearances.
- Sensitive information, such as Social Security and bank account numbers, is being exposed without proper safeguards, potentially endangering millions.
- Arbitrary and Capricious Action Under the APA: The lawsuit asserts that the Treasury’s policy change constitutes a “final agency action” under the APA and is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
- Treasury bypassed established procedures and failed to conduct the required privacy impact assessments mandated by the E-Government Act.
- No adequate explanation was provided for why DOGE, a politically-driven entity, was given access.
- Constitutional Violations:
- By giving DOGE the ability to potentially block payments, the new policy encroaches on the legislative power of Congress, which controls federal appropriations.
- Allowing political appointees to interfere with payment processing violates the Take Care Clause, which requires the executive branch to faithfully execute the law.
- Immediate Harm and Security Risks: DOGE’s expanded access to critical financial infrastructure introduces severe cybersecurity risks and has already led to disruptions in payments for federal programs, including health clinics, schools, and social services.
Merits of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit presents a strong case based on the following:
- Clear Violations of Federal Statutes: The plaintiffs provide evidence of how the expanded access policy disregards multiple legal safeguards under the Privacy Act, E-Government Act, and related laws.
- Documented Harm: The complaint highlights interruptions to federal funding streams and the risk of misuse of sensitive data by unauthorized DOGE members, including Elon Musk’s public statements suggesting plans to block or modify payments.
- Constitutional Implications: The legal argument that the executive branch’s actions encroach on Congress’s power and violate the separation of powers doctrine is well-supported.
- Urgency and Irreparable Harm: The plaintiffs seek an emergency injunction, arguing that further delays could jeopardize critical federal payments and endanger the financial security of millions of Americans.
Overall, the lawsuit demonstrates substantial legal grounding and urgency, with significant evidence of both statutory and constitutional violations.
WRITE YOUR ESTATE PLAN TODAY