In a decision that has generated controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Government Efficiency Commission (DOGE), established by President Donald Trump, to access personal records managed by the Social Security Administration (SSA). This ruling overturns a restriction imposed in April by a federal judge, and was issued unsigned, with the opposition of the three liberal justices on the court. The measure has raised concerns about the privacy of millions of citizens.
With this decision, DOGE members will be able to review confidential information contained in SSA files, including social security numbers, medical histories, bank accounts, and addresses. This data is essential for identifying the beneficiaries of the system. The resolution responds to an appeal from the Trump administration, which sought to expedite access to these records before lower courts ruled on their legality, generating a new conflict between the Executive and the Judiciary.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the justices who voted against, expressed her concern about the risks this decision poses to the privacy of millions of people.In April, District Judge Ellen Hollander had determined that access to DOGE should be limited to anonymized records. Furthermore, she mandated that authorized personnel undergo background checks and receive training on privacy and federal regulations before accessing any document with personal data. This measure aimed to protect citizens’ sensitive information, but it has been overturned by the recent Supreme Court decision.
The social security number is an essential identifier in the United States, used in multiple procedures, such as tax declarations, access to retirement benefits, and social programs. The Court’s decision has generated a new conflict between the Executive and the Judiciary, in a context where the Trump administration has repeatedly clashed with the courts since coming back to power in January. The privacy of personal data has become a central issue in this debate.
The Government Efficiency Commission (DOGE) was tasked by Trump with implementing drastic cuts to federal spending, aiming to reduce billions of dollars in programs deemed inefficient. Until a few weeks ago, the commission was headed by businessman Elon Musk, whose relationship with the president has deteriorated following recent public disagreements. This context adds an additional layer of complexity to the current situation.
The Supreme Court’s decision has been met with criticism from privacy advocates and civil rights defenders, who argue that unrestricted access to personal data could be misused. The lack of a thorough judicial analysis before allowing this access has been one of the most criticized points, as it could set a dangerous precedent for future decisions related to citizens’ privacy.In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s authorization for DOGE to access personal records managed by the SSA has sparked an intense debate about privacy and government efficiency. While the Trump administration seeks to implement cuts to public spending, the protection of citizens’ personal data has become a crucial issue. The resolution of this conflict could have significant implications for the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary in the future.