Washington, D.C. DOGE Department of Labor Access Challenge

Lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and five other organizations against the Department of Labor (DOL) and its acting secretary, the U.S. Digital Service and the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization (DOGE) challenging DOGE’s attempts to gain access to the DOL’s information systems. On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14158 (EO 14158), which created DOGE — led by Elon Musk — to dismantle and restructure federal programs and services. The order also requires the head of each federal agency to establish a “DOGE team” of at least four employees, which would work alongside DOGE to advise agencies on how to implement Trump’s agenda. EO 14158 also orders agencies to provide unfettered access to all unclassified agency systems and records. 

The plaintiffs allege that since its inception, DOGE personnel have obtained access to the information systems of several federal agencies. On Feb. 4, the plaintiffs assert that DOGE requested access to DOL systems. They claim DOL leadership told employees “to provide access to any DOL system they requested access to and not to worry about any security protocols.” 

The plaintiffs claim these efforts and the DOL’s compliance will lend DOGE access to highly sensitive data on federal workers. They argue DOGE and the DOL are acting beyond their legal authority in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, Privacy Act, and Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act. The plaintiffs ask the court to block the DOL from granting DOGE personnel access to department information systems. They also ask the court to ban DOGE from accessing any agency information in violation of federal law.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on Feb. 5, 2025. On Feb. 6, the DOL agreed not to share any records with DOGE before a Feb. 7 hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order is completed. 

On Feb. 7, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order despite the court harboring “concerns about defendants’ alleged conduct.” The court asked the parties to propose a briefing schedule for the plaintiffs’ forthcoming preliminary injunction motion.

On Feb. 19, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery.

STATUS: On Feb. 27, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery. Litigation is ongoing.

Last updated: February 27, 2025 3:56 pm EST