EFF Sues DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management(eff.org)
eff.org
EFF Sues DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/eff-sues-doge-and-office-personnel-management-halt-ransacking-federal-data
5 comments
The justice system will be overwhelmed for years, so I don't think you'll see much progress. The current presidency reveals that, with a compliant Congress, the executive branch can execute whatever it wants. By the time the judicial system steps in, the damage will be done. The situation is unhinged with or without context.
The core argument appears to be that DOGE is not a government agency, therefore the rest. Good luck!
The case is AFGE, AFL-CIO v. OPM, 1:25-cv-01237 (S.D.N.Y. 2025).[1]
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69631573/american-feder...
The case is AFGE, AFL-CIO v. OPM, 1:25-cv-01237 (S.D.N.Y. 2025).[1]
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69631573/american-feder...
They're clearly covered by the "need to know" exceptions of the Act, no?
Seems oddly politically motivated and out of character for EFF.
> The data housed by OPM is extraordinarily sensitive for several reasons. The federal government is the nation’s largest employer, and OPM’s records are one of the largest, if not the largest, collection of employee data in the country. In addition to personally identifiable information such as names, social security numbers, and demographics, it includes work experience, union activities, salaries, performance, and demotions; health information like life insurance and health benefits; financial information like death benefit designations and savings programs; and classified information nondisclosure agreements. It holds records for millions of federal workers and millions more Americans who have applied for federal jobs.
DOGE has unlawful access to tremendous amounts of data on american citizens. Intervening to protect their privacy seems very much in line with the EFF's mission.
DOGE has unlawful access to tremendous amounts of data on american citizens. Intervening to protect their privacy seems very much in line with the EFF's mission.
Please pardon my ignorance but why is it unlawful for DOGE to be accessing this data? I was under the impression they had proper security clearance and were given lawful access by the president somehow.
Here's my reasoning:
As per the US constitution, removing funding for federal agencies requires congressional approval. What DOGE is doing has not been approved by Congress. DOGE has removed funding for federal agencies, such as USAID. It follows from these three premises that DOGE is acting unconstitutionally.
Obviously, IANAL. I took it from reading various news articles. You can find more online quite easily.
As per the US constitution, removing funding for federal agencies requires congressional approval. What DOGE is doing has not been approved by Congress. DOGE has removed funding for federal agencies, such as USAID. It follows from these three premises that DOGE is acting unconstitutionally.
Obviously, IANAL. I took it from reading various news articles. You can find more online quite easily.
as a hypothetical, if the prez defined 'proper security clearance' as opening up http (unencrypted) access and clicking OKAY on the website (or many with all this data), allowable to anybody on the internet to access said data.. would you be okay that it was happening?
my point is that "proper security clearance" is subjective, and as we are observing, (from what i read the other day) "clearance" is given to folks who would have never made passing the clearance checks in the very recent past (lol like a few weeks ago recent past).
is it all lawful? time will tell, and thats what EFF and others will try to decide - and good luck if any of that data is ever properly disposed of and not benefited from (aka insider knowledge).
my point is that "proper security clearance" is subjective, and as we are observing, (from what i read the other day) "clearance" is given to folks who would have never made passing the clearance checks in the very recent past (lol like a few weeks ago recent past).
is it all lawful? time will tell, and thats what EFF and others will try to decide - and good luck if any of that data is ever properly disposed of and not benefited from (aka insider knowledge).
>DOGE has unlawful access
Citation required.
DOGE is part of the government, DOGE having access to data is no different from OPM employees having access to data - because they are part of the same executive branch
Citation required.
DOGE is part of the government, DOGE having access to data is no different from OPM employees having access to data - because they are part of the same executive branch
Just because it's part of the government doesn't mean it can do whatever it wants. Especially since none of its members are elected representatives.
I don't know, just google "doge illegal". I don't feel like "DOGE is operating extra-legally" is a particularly contentious fact.
I don't know, just google "doge illegal". I don't feel like "DOGE is operating extra-legally" is a particularly contentious fact.
Donny is elected and doge is basically implementing what donny has promised to voters all along
I dont see discrepancy or conflict here, would you expect donny auditing expenses by himself exclusively ?
I dont see discrepancy or conflict here, would you expect donny auditing expenses by himself exclusively ?
As per the US constitution, removing funding for federal agencies requires congressional approval. What DOGE is doing has not been approved by Congress. DOGE has removed funding for federal agencies, such as USAID. It follows from these three premises that DOGE is acting unconstitutionally.
There, I spelled it out for you. You must understand, just because Trump is president does not make him a king, although the GOP is very much pushing for that. He is still supposed to abide by the law.
There, I spelled it out for you. You must understand, just because Trump is president does not make him a king, although the GOP is very much pushing for that. He is still supposed to abide by the law.
I will wait for the Supreme court decision to clarify this.
What DOGE is doing is uncovering waste and running PR campaign, they do it for few more weeks, and Congress will be unable to reject DOGE's proposed cuts to federal agencies - because taxpayers are getting more and more angry at what kind of waste is being uncovered
What DOGE is doing is uncovering waste and running PR campaign, they do it for few more weeks, and Congress will be unable to reject DOGE's proposed cuts to federal agencies - because taxpayers are getting more and more angry at what kind of waste is being uncovered
Similarly, is there a good source that contextualizes this in a way other than near unhinged?