Federal Judge Expresses Doubts About Efforts to Restrict DOGE’s Data Access

A federal judge in Washington expressed hesitation on February 17 regarding the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and has yet to provide a conclusive ruling.

The plaintiffs claim that DOGE has exceeded its mandate while trying to decrease government waste and reduce the federal workforce.

D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan appeared doubtful of these claims and is set to release a comprehensive ruling before Tuesday’s end.

During a hearing on February 17, she stated, “DOGE was organized, enacted, created, to cut waste,” which falls within their jurisdiction.

This case follows a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, DOGE, and Elon Musk, who is at the helm of the agency.

The lawsuit was initiated by 15 states: New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington.

Related Stories

The lawsuit also contends that Trump breached the Appointments Clause when he established DOGE and appointed Musk to lead the agency without prior consultation with Congress.

DOGE was created by Trump on his first day in office, following the rebranding of the United States Digital Service, which aims to “deliver better government services to the American people through technology and design.”

The plaintiffs initially sought extensive relief, requesting the court to enforce an 11-point restriction plan on DOGE.

Some of these restrictions would prohibit DOGE from altering the distribution of public funds by agencies, canceling government contracts, rescinding regulations and amendments, or “taking actions to dismantle agencies established by law or otherwise asserting authority over such agencies.”

After a hearing on February 14, the judge instructed the plaintiffs to submit a revised order, narrowing their request for relief.

The plaintiffs complied, streamlining their request to two restrictions: accessing and copying government agency data, or executing mass firings and layoffs.

If approved, the order would extend to the Office of Personnel Management and the departments of Health and Human Services, Transportation, Commerce, Education, and Labor.

They highlighted that the effects of DOGE’s modifications cannot be reversed swiftly, citing media reports indicating that DOGE has proposed cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), impacting Indian Health Services in New Mexico.

“The court can’t act based on media reports,” the judge previously noted. She also remarked that the plaintiffs’ request for additional time to find examples of harm “undercuts” the necessity for a TRO.

In this context, she questioned whether the claimed harm, such as the cessation of certain government programs or employee terminations, could be considered irreversible, particularly since many of the grievances presented by the plaintiff states had not yet taken place.

She further queried the Department of Justice’s lawyer to confirm if any mass firings by DOGE or other agencies had occurred the prior week, or if any were scheduled for the upcoming weeks, as he had been unable to do so during the hearing.

“I think it would be very relevant for me to find out if thousands of employees were terminated on Friday,” she pointed out.

Chutkan also sought assurance from the attorney that the Trump administration would not engage in mass layoffs in the following weeks.

The attorney responded that he could not guarantee that for the agencies. He noted that previous terminations followed the proper authorization protocols at each agency.

Legal representatives for the plaintiff states reiterated that their primary concern wasn’t with DOGE accessing agency data but rather with the potential utilization of that data for layoffs and department closures.

The government responded that this assertion “reveals half the game,” as the TRO aims to prevent DOGE from accessing that data.