The Trump administration secured a significant legal victory Friday as a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can retain access to sensitive data across multiple federal agencies.
In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge John Bates — a George W. Bush appointee — denied a request from the AFL-CIO, several other unions, and an economic think tank for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked DOGE’s access to nonpublic government information. The plaintiffs had accused DOGE of violating numerous laws by being granted broad, largely unregulated access to confidential data housed in departments like Labor and Health and Human Services.
The court’s decision follows months of mixed outcomes. While the plaintiffs had repeatedly failed to obtain a temporary restraining order, they did score a procedural win in February when Judge Bates ordered four DOGE members to sit for depositions. The unions hoped those depositions would bolster their April motion for a preliminary injunction.
But in his decision, Bates concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show they would suffer “irreparable harm” — a key requirement for the court to issue such an injunction.
“The only harm plaintiffs allege their members face is that their information has been or will be viewed by unauthorized government personnel,” Bates wrote. “Absent evidence those personnel will imminently misuse or publicly disclose that information, the Court cannot say that irreparable harm will clearly occur before the Court can make a final determination on the merits.”
The plaintiffs had argued that access alone to highly sensitive personal information — including employment history, financial records, and detailed medical data — was inherently harmful. They also claimed the Trump administration had admitted to allowing DOGE access to over two dozen sensitive databases without conducting individualized reviews.
Still, Bates found that while the concerns were valid, they did not rise to the legal standard necessary to justify blocking DOGE’s access.
“Not all alleged invasions of privacy invariably result in irreparable harm,” he wrote, adding that internal disclosures within the government — without further misuse — are less likely to warrant immediate court intervention.
Although the plaintiffs’ injunction request was denied, Bates left the door open for future relief, noting that the court remains deeply concerned about the opaque nature of DOGE and the scope of its access.
“This conclusion does not mean the harm the members face is insubstantial,” he wrote. “The Court’s concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs’ harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits. At this time, however, the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction is not warranted.”
The case will now proceed toward a full ruling on the merits, where the plaintiffs will have another chance to argue that DOGE’s access violates the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
