Federal judge hands Musk’s DOGE a win on data access at 3 agencies
Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency can continue to access sensitive records from at least three federal agencies after a federal judge in Washington denied a request to block Musk's budget-slashing team from the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
U.S. District Judge John Bates, in a late-night ruling, denied a request made by a group of unions and nonprofits to issue a temporary order blocking DOGE from the sensitive records maintained by the three agencies.
Elon Musk has repeatedly targeted Bates over the last week on X – including calling for the judge's impeachment – after Bates issued a decision in another case ordering multiple agencies to restore public health data after the Trump administration suddenly removed it.
"There needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one," Musk wrote on Wednesday in response to a post about the judge.
The tech billionaire celebrated Friday's ruling in a post on X.
The judge's decision came down to the question of whether DOGE has the authority to "detail" its people to individual parts of the federal government where – as employees of that department or agency – the individuals associated with DOGE could legally access the sensitive records. To have that authority, DOGE would have to be considered an "agency" in the eyes of the law, Bates wrote.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that DOGE is not an agency -- because it was created via an executive order -- and therefore is not entitled to detail its employees to parts of the federal government.
Curiously, lawyers for DOGE have attempted to avoid the "agency" label during court hearings despite its "strong claim" to agency status, Bates wrote.
"This appears to come from a desire to escape the obligations that accompany agencyhood" -- such as being subject to the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act -- "while reaping only its benefits," the judge wrote.
Ultimately, the disagreed with DOGE's own interpretation of its status -- determining it likely is an "agency" -- and delivering it a surprise win by determining that DOGE has the authority to continue to access to sensitive records.
"For the reasons explained above, on the record as it currently stands and with limited briefing on the issue, the case law defining agencies indicates that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency. If that is so, [DOGE] may detail its employees to other agencies consistent with the Economy Act," he wrote.
