Trump DOJ Grants DOGE Access to Sensitive Immigration Data, Raising Privacy Concerns

A recently surfaced report has revealed a decision from the Trump administration that’s now setting off alarm bells among civil rights groups and privacy watchdogs: an internal agency known as the Department of Government Efficiency — or DOGE — was reportedly granted access to sensitive immigration case information.

The DOGE, an experimental tech-focused agency with links to entrepreneur Elon Musk, was originally created to “modernize” government data systems. But its quiet access to immigration data — including names, addresses, case statuses, and interactions with immigration officers — is being called “deeply troubling” by advocates who say it could have long-term consequences.

Wait, What Is DOGE?

The Department of Government Efficiency isn’t exactly a household name. Created under the Trump administration, DOGE was designed as a pilot program to bring tech-style innovation to federal agencies. Think Silicon Valley meets Washington, D.C.

Some of its projects involved data clean-up, automating outdated systems, and improving how agencies process paperwork. Elon Musk was reportedly a behind-the-scenes advocate of the concept, encouraging private-public tech partnerships that would streamline federal operations.

But what started as a seemingly harmless idea has now come under scrutiny — especially after internal documents reportedly showed that DOGE had access to real immigration case data.

Why This Matters

We’re not talking about generic stats or reports. The data DOGE accessed included personally identifiable information — names, case numbers, legal filings, and in some cases, health and biometric data tied to immigration screenings.

“This isn’t just about efficiency,” said one legal analyst. “This is about access to extremely sensitive information that could be misused or mishandled, especially by a team that may not be fully trained in immigration law or privacy rights.”

Immigration advocates fear that the data could be used to target certain individuals or families based on political motives, especially given how contentious immigration enforcement became during the Trump years.

How Did This Happen?

According to a recent investigative report, senior Trump administration officials authorized DOGE to “support” immigration agencies with data modernization. But that support, it seems, came with the digital keys to the entire system.

One anonymous government official familiar with the matter called the access “comprehensive — more than what most field agents even had.”

Pushback from Civil Rights Groups

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organizations have already begun demanding accountability. They’re asking how DOGE got access to this information, who approved it, and — most importantly — what happened to the data after the pilot project ended.

“This is very concerning,” said an ACLU spokesperson. “It’s a dangerous precedent when non-immigration agencies with unclear oversight are allowed into these highly personal records.”

Several lawmakers have also started asking questions. A few members of Congress are reportedly preparing letters demanding answers from the Justice Department and other related federal agencies.

Is It Even Legal?

That’s the million-dollar question. Legal experts are split. Some say it could violate privacy laws like the Privacy Act of 1974, which places tight restrictions on how federal agencies handle personal data. Others argue that if DOGE was considered an internal government office, it may technically have been allowed — even if ethically questionable.

Either way, lawsuits may be on the horizon. And the public pushback is likely to continue, especially as more details emerge about how DOGE operated — and who was behind the decisions.

Looking Ahead

As of now, there’s no official word from Elon Musk or current government officials on the matter. The Biden administration has not commented on whether DOGE still exists in any form or if the program was dismantled after the change in leadership.

What’s clear, however, is that questions about how personal data is handled — especially when it comes to vulnerable communities like immigrants — aren’t going away.

“This is about trust,” said a former DOJ employee. “Trust that when you apply for a visa, seek asylum, or follow the legal process, your personal story won’t end up on someone’s experiment board.”