A federal judge on Wednesday looked to pinpoint the exact duties of Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffers during a hearing over whether to cut off their unfettered access to troves of sensitive personal data.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman questioned the Justice Department over the specific “purposes or tasks” assigned to DOGE workers, attempting to determine whether their far-reaching access is warranted.
“This is so new — I don’t know what the DOGE people’s purposes or tasks are,” Boardman said. “I’m trying to figure that out.”
President Trump established DOGE in a Jan. 20 executive order. Though billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk is said to be leading its sweeping cost-cutting efforts, the White House said in court filings that Musk is technically not part of DOGE, instead serving as a senior advisor to the president.
Emily Hall, a Justice Department lawyer, contended that Trump’s order directing DOGE to “maximize governmental efficiency and productivity” essentially amounts to a job description.
“That couldn’t be more broad,” Boardman said.
“The president is looking to implement pretty sweeping changes,” Hall replied, calling DOGE’s goals broad.
The inquiry into DOGE’s staffers came as Boardman weighed whether to temporarily bar DOGE from accessing sensitive personal data across numerous federal agencies.
Six Americans and a handful of union organizations sued the Department of Treasury, Department of Education (DOE) and United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) over personally identifiable information in the systems to which DOGE has gained access.
The challengers claim DOGE’s actions violate the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed in response to the Watergate scandal and provides safeguards against privacy violations. In court filings, they accused the agencies of “abandoning their duties as guardians and gatekeepers” of millions of Americans’ sensitive information.
DOGE’s work and the staffers carrying it out has remained largely obscure, though court proceedings have peeled back the curtains on certain efforts. Several DOGE deputies were previously affiliated with Musk’s companies, and some staffers are fresh out of high school or college, raising alarm about their infiltration of the government.
The judge zeroed in on three DOGE staffers in leadership positions — Tom Krause, Adam Ramada and Greg Hogan — who described their work in court filings.
Krause, a tech executive and team lead of DOGE’s Treasury outpost, wrote in a declaration that his unpaid role is to use technology to make the agency “more effective, more efficient, and more responsive” to Trump’s policy goals.
He also said he performs the duties of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, which manages the government’s accounting, central payment systems and public debts. He is the Treasury’s only DOGE affiliate, after his colleague resigned when racist social media posts resurfaced, according to his declaration.
Ramada said he is employed by DOGE and detailed to DOE, where he’s tasked with helping the agency “auditing contract, grant, and related programs for waste, fraud, and abuse,” including DOE’s federal student loan portfolio.
And Hogan, chief information officer of OPM, described his role as developing and maintaining OPM’s IT and information resources infrastructure, advising agency leadership and strategic planning regarding OPM’s information management functions. He also said he ensures personnel interact with those systems “securely and efficiently.”
Hall said Krause, Ramada and Hogan need unrestrained access to personal information like Social Security numbers and bank account information to evaluate systems of records and programs in their aim to “better modernize”
The DOJ lawyer said Ramada’s team is responsible for assessing the student loan system and may need access to borrowers’ incomes to understand their ability to repay their loans. The OPM, in particular, requires vast access because the “entire agency” is working to implement Trump’s orders and “acting as representatives of the DOGE in that regard,” she said.
The case is one of more than a dozen pending lawsuits that challenge DOGE’s structure or its access to systems at various federal departments.
The judge has not yet ruled on whether to block DOGE’s access to the sensitive personal information, nor decided whether that ruling should stretch beyond the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit — altogether, about 2 million people.
