'Hitting a fly with a sledgehammer': DOGE access to some Social Security data blocked

ABC News - Mar 20th, 2025

In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration (SSA). The judge criticized DOGE's approach as an overreach, likening it to 'hitting a fly with a sledgehammer,' and noted the lack of justification for such extensive data access. The judge's order mandates the destruction of any personally identifiable information already accessed by DOGE and restricts further access, with the exception of anonymized data. This decision was hailed by unions and advocacy groups, who had argued that DOGE's actions violated privacy laws and federal regulations.

The case underscores ongoing tensions over data privacy and government oversight, particularly concerning the Trump administration's efforts to combat alleged fraud within the SSA. The ruling highlights the balance needed between fraud prevention and protecting citizens' sensitive information. It also brings to light concerns about transparency and accountability within government agencies, as DOGE's employees' identities remain concealed while they had access to millions of Americans' data. The decision is seen as a victory for privacy advocates and sets a precedent for how government agencies should handle sensitive data in their efforts to modernize and secure systems.

Elon Musk Trump Administration Department Of Government Efficiency Fraud Prevention American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees Social Security Administration Data Privacy Ellen Lipton Hollander

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a detailed account of a federal judge's ruling against DOGE's access to sensitive Social Security data, highlighting important issues of privacy and government oversight. It accurately represents the judge's perspective and the concerns of those opposing DOGE's actions, but it lacks input from DOGE or government representatives, which would provide a more balanced view. The article is timely and addresses a topic of significant public interest, with clear and accessible language that enhances readability. However, the reliance on a limited range of sources and the absence of diverse perspectives somewhat limit its impact and engagement potential. Overall, the article effectively raises awareness of privacy concerns but could benefit from a broader exploration of viewpoints and more transparent sourcing.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on a federal judge's ruling blocking the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) data. It correctly attributes the metaphor 'hitting a fly with a sledgehammer' to U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander, who criticized the broad scope of DOGE's data access. The story also accurately notes the judge's concerns about potential violations of federal laws and the lack of justification for such extensive data access. However, some claims, such as the specific types of data at risk and the details of the lawsuit, would benefit from additional verification through court documents or official statements to ensure complete accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of the judge and those opposing DOGE's data access, such as the unions and advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit. While it quotes Judge Hollander extensively and includes a statement from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, it lacks input from DOGE or representatives from the Trump administration. Including their viewpoints would provide a more balanced representation of the issue and help readers understand the rationale behind DOGE's actions.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information that helps readers understand the key issues. The language is straightforward, and technical terms are explained in a way that is accessible to a general audience. However, some sections could be more concise to improve readability, particularly the detailed descriptions of the types of data at risk. Overall, the article effectively communicates the main points of the story.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on the court ruling and statements from involved parties, such as the judge and union representatives. While these sources are authoritative, the lack of direct quotes or responses from DOGE or government officials limits the diversity of perspectives. The article would benefit from additional sources, such as legal experts or privacy advocates, to provide a broader context and enhance the reliability of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the lawsuit and the judge's decision, but it could be more transparent about the methodology used to gather information. For instance, it does not specify whether the author reviewed court documents directly or relied on secondary sources. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might affect its impartiality. Greater transparency about the sources and methods would enhance the credibility of the reporting.