‘Musk is Reaching Too Far’: Federal Union Boss Dishes on Why He’s Suing DOGE

Three large unions sued the Treasury Department Monday to block Elon Musk and his apparatchiks from accessing federal servers with sensitive member data and financial information — alleging a “massive and unprecedented” intrusion of privacy. 

Musk and his team at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly have full access to Treasury payment systems that include, for example, Social Security and tax records. The lawsuit claims that DOGE’s cross-agency meddling in Treasury systems is a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974; the Internal Revenue Code; and related regulations that bar sharing of sensitive data, in particular without advance notice. 

The litigation says that the Treasury Department has “a non-discretionary duty” to protect private records and tax data “from unauthorized disclosure” — a legal obligation that’s been flouted by allowing “Elon Musk and/or other individuals associated with DOGE to access” sensitive Treasury records. The suit seeks a court declaration that the Musk-led effort is “unlawful” and injunctions to prohibit DOGE’s current and future access to the Treasury’s treasure trove of Americans’ data.

To better understand the impetus behind the suit and what it means for federal workers, Rolling Stone spoke to Everett Kelley, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents a wide swath of the federal workforce across more than 900 locals. AFGE sued along with the Alliance for Retired Americans and the Service Employees International Union.

The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

For people who aren’t familiar with your union, who do you represent, and what’s your standing in this case?

We represent 800,000 federal- and D.C.- government workers. They are people that work for the VA, to take care of our veterans; the Social Security Administration workers that make sure the beneficiaries receive their pension on time. They are Border Patrol agents; they are TSA agents: they are food inspectors, they are doctors, they are lawyers, they work for the Department of Education, the State Department, the D.C. government — any array of occupations.

Editor’s picks

In broad strokes, what is the concern that led AFGE to join this lawsuit?

It is my opinion that this administration is trying to dismantle the federal government, and we believe that there should be transparency. We believe that there should be accountability. We believe that the services that the American people depend on should not be disrupted in the manner in which it is being disrupted.

How does that relate to what Elon Musk and his DOGE cohort are doing, accessing the records of your members. 

We believe that is illegal. It’s a breach of the privacy of the workforce, and in some cases, the American people. We think that Mr. Musk is reaching too far. And we intend on making sure that justice is served here. We will fight to the very end to make sure that our members’ rights are protected. No one should have access to my personal information, nor should they have access to the 800,000 members I represent. 

When you work for the federal government, in order to get that level of clearance to access personal information, you have to be vetted to get those clearances. And in this case, [they weren’t].

I’m an ex-federal employee. OK? And in order for me to get secret clearances and all those types of things, I had to be vetted. I had to go through certain criteria. But this person comes in and got access to 2.2 million federal employees’ records, and has never been vetted. He wasn’t even a federal employee. 

Related Content

And then [the White House is saying], “OK, now he’s a federal employee.” 

Well, guess what? Now there’s even more restrictions. They will deliberately disregard those restrictions and continue down this path of destruction.

So the claim is that they’ve thrown process out the window as they’ve attempted to just jam through their program?

They don’t understand the process, to be honest with you. We’ve been working with administrations for over 90 years. We’ve never had this kind of disruption — because you had staff that tried to adhere to the processes. 

In this instance, he’s come in and he’s fired everybody that knows the process. He don’t want anyone in that knows the process. He wants to steamroll his way. If you read Project 2025, he’s doing exactly what they said they were gonna do: They’re gonna move quickly, decisively, and make us fight him in court. And that’s we will do. 

What is the solution that you’re looking for? 

They need to be completely out of government, if you ask me. Because what they’re doing, in actuality, it’s fascism, OK? I’m just being frank. These guys, these individuals, don’t need to be involved in government, period — because they have no respect for the workforce. They have no respect for the law. They have no respect for the policies that have been put in place and been adhered to for decades.

What is your view as to what they’re actually trying to accomplish?

They are trying to look at the system, determine what they don’t like, and just do away with it — even if it’s a violation of the law. 

Is there concern that these Social Security records and other sensitive information will leak to corporate third parties? Or leak to foreign governments? What are some of the harms that are possible now that these unvetted individuals have access to this crown-jewel data?

The truth of the matter is this, we don’t know who has access. That’s one problem. But they have access to all these employees’ financial information — that can be very harmful. I’m not accusing anyone of giving anything to a foreign government or anything like that. But we don’t know who has access. So anything is possible. 

I know you’re not a lawyer, but are there any specifics you want to highlight as we’re talking about this case?

They have violated every policy as it relates to the Privacy Act. And I’m going to make sure that we fight that every way that we can, to make sure that not only the workforce’s privacy is protected, but that the American people’s privacy is protected. Because it’s about us, now, standing in the way of [dismantling] democracy. 

The courts are obviously one venue. But as someone who represents, for example, Border Patrol Agents, it would seem you’d have some influence with Republican lawmakers. What are you hearing on Capitol Hill? Are Republicans on board to give the president and Musk a blank check right now? Or is there any point of leverage that you have with the GOP majority?

It appears that they’re giving the president a blank check to just do as he pleases. But I’m calling on the Congress to stand up and do their job, Republican and Democrat. Protect American values, right? I haven’t seen that in the last two weeks. But we’re definitely calling on the American people to make it known to their elected representatives that they expect them to do their job. 

Are there other labor actions that could go along with filing a suit like this? If the federal government isn’t honoring the law, for example, should workers engage in a slowdown? Or are there other other levers of power that federal workers have to exercise their own muscle? 

The federal employees that I represent are very patriotic. They will do that job. They might grieve it after they’ve done it, but they will do that job. And we wouldn’t call for any type of slowdown, or anything like that. We’ll tell our members to go to work, do their job to the best of their ability. But in addition to filing the grievances and lawsuits, we’ll be doing rallies throughout the United States to bring attention to this and call for the exit of these people causing this disarray. 

Any final thoughts?

This workforce is a workforce that makes America work. And if you start chipping away at this workforce, the American people are going to be the one that pay the price for it — they’re going to suffer the loss. I think that part of the objective here is to cause the federal workforce to not be able to do that job, so that they can justify contracting out the work [to private businesses]. I wanted to just say that.