In a significant ruling, the United States Supreme Court has endorsed the stance of President Donald Trump’s administration regarding access to government records. This decision comes as part of two critical cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the Social Security Administration (SSA).
On a notable Friday in 2025, the six-member conservative majority of the Court overturned a previous ruling from a lower court that had set limitations on the information accessible to DOGE from the SSA.
In a separate ruling, the Court determined that DOGE does not have to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), legislation aimed at ensuring government transparency.
The three justices leaning left—Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan—voiced their dissent against both decisions.
DOGE has been a cornerstone of Trump’s initiative to transform the federal government by addressing bureaucratic inefficiencies and reducing waste. Launched shortly after Trump’s re-election on November 13, the agency’s mission includes dismantling government bureaucracy and restructuring federal agencies.
Initially, there was uncertainty regarding DOGE’s role within the executive branch, whether it would function as an advisory body or a standalone department. However, following Trump’s inauguration for his second term, he announced the reorganization of the existing US Digital Service, founded during Barack Obama’s presidency, to create DOGE.
Since its establishment, DOGE has prompted a comprehensive reconfiguration of federal operations, including mass layoffs and efforts to eliminate agencies like the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The organization has also claimed to save costs and highlight fraudulent activities, though many of these assertions have faced scrutiny from reporters and experts.
Moreover, DOGE’s extensive reforms have raised alarm among critics, especially regarding its attempts to gain broader access to sensitive government data.
Until recently, DOGE was under the leadership of Elon Musk, the billionaire tech entrepreneur who previously supported Trump’s re-election efforts. Their relationship soured after Musk’s departure as a “special government employee” in the White House, leaving uncertainty about DOGE’s future direction.
Controversy Over Accessing Social Security Data
Among DOGE’s contentious efforts has been its campaign to obtain Social Security data to uncover waste and abuse. In the early days of Trump’s second term, both Trump and Musk made misleading claims about Social Security payments going to individuals purportedly over 150 years old, which were quickly debunked by fact-checkers. They clarified that the SSA has protocols to automatically halt payments to anyone listed as longer than 115 years alive.
Instead, discrepancies in the Social Security database involving birthdates set back 150 years may have contributed to the administration’s misunderstanding. According to a 2024 inspector general report, less than 1% of Social Security payments are erroneous.
Despite this, Trump officials continued to criticize the SSA, with Musk labeling it “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.” In March, US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked DOGE from unrestricted access to Social Security data, citing privacy concerns associated with Social Security numbers.
Judge Lipton Hollander emphasized that DOGE had failed to present a clear justification for its need for unlimited access and suggested a more focused approach would be prudent. She stated, “The government merely repeats its need for modernization and fraud prevention without justifying its sweeping methods.” However, the ruling did allow DOGE to access anonymized data.
The Trump administration subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which responded favorably by lifting the limitations imposed by Judge Lipton Hollander, issuing an unsigned decision to grant the emergency petition.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, provided a strong dissent, expressing concerns that the Court was bypassing established legal principles to support a presidency that resisted normal judicial processes. She remarked, “Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushing in to inflame rather than alleviate concerns.” Jackson argued that the Trump administration had not sufficiently demonstrated any immediate harmful consequences if DOGE were temporarily restricted from accessing the data.
Should DOGE Adhere to Transparency Laws?
A second Supreme Court ruling Friday focused on whether DOGE is obligated to comply with federal transparency regulations, like FOIA. This issue arose from a lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which contended that DOGE’s extensive powers call for adherence to FOIA similarly to other executive agencies. Furthermore, CREW argued the vagueness around DOGE’s structure shielded it from thorough investigation.
While a lower court sided with CREW in April, the Supreme Court has moderated that decision, sending it back to the appeals court for closer evaluation while narrowing CREW’s request.
The Court’s conservative majority stated, “Determining whether an entity qualifies as an agency for FOIA should not rest on its persuasive capability” and underscored the need for judicial restraint regarding internal executive communications.