On February 21, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas issued a preliminary injunction barring Treasury from giving DOGE-affiliated personnel access to specified payment records and systems containing sensitive personal and financial information. The order did not broadly prohibit Treasury from creating processes to flag or pause payments. Later orders allowed access under conditions, and in 2026 the court dismissed the access claims as moot after DOGE dissolved—not because it ruled that the original access was lawful.
What Judge Vargas’s February 2025 order restricted
The case, New York v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-01144, was brought by 19 states in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The states challenged the Treasury DOGE team’s access to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s payment systems.
Judge Vargas’s February 21 preliminary injunction restrained Treasury from granting DOGE-affiliated employees, officers or contractors access to payment records, payment systems and other Treasury data systems containing personally identifiable or confidential financial information of payees, pending further order. The court also required Treasury to report on personnel training, vetting and clearances, mitigation procedures, legal authority for employment or detail, and reporting lines. Read the February 21 order.
The injunction addressed access to sensitive records and systems. It did not grant the states’ broader request to prohibit Treasury from creating automated or manual processes to flag or pause payments. The court said its remedy was tailored to the threatened disclosure of sensitive information.
#1 Best Overall
Why the states sued—and what the court found
The states argued that the DOGE team’s access put sensitive information about states and their residents at risk because vetting and training were inadequate. At the preliminary-injunction stage, the court found they were likely to succeed on their claim that Treasury had acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to adequately consider privacy and security risks. The order’s findings were preliminary; they were not a final judgment resolving every allegation in the case.
Nor did the order find that a data breach had occurred. It covered records and systems with sensitive information, but the court did not provide a verified count of people whose data had been accessed or find that information was actually exposed.
Rank #2
- Enough forms for 1 year for churches of approximately 150 members
- 5 3/16" x 9"
- Includes forms for church receipts, member contributions, and disbursements
What Musk said—and what the $100 billion figure means
Computerworld reported that Elon Musk condemned the ruling on X. The outlet attributed to him a claim that “there are currently over $100B/year of entitlement payments to individuals with no SSN or even a temporary ID number,” followed by: “If accurate, this is extremely suspicious.” He also wrote, “This is utterly insane and must be addressed immediately.” Computerworld’s account presents the $100 billion figure as Musk’s claim; it is not a court finding or an independently verified statistic in the sources cited here.
The states’ complaint also reproduced a separate post it attributed to Musk: “Billions of taxpayer dollars to known FRAUDULENT entities are STILL being APPROVED by Treasury. This needs to STOP NOW!” The complaint quoted him describing DOGE as “rapidly shutting down” payments. Those are statements attributed to Musk in the plaintiffs’ filing, not findings by the court. The New York attorney general’s announcement described the access as “unauthorized,” which is the coalition’s characterization.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
How the case changed after the initial injunction
The February order was not the final word on access. A temporary restraining order had been issued on February 8, 2025, before Judge Vargas granted the preliminary injunction on February 21. On May 27, 2025, the court modified its restrictions to permit access under conditions reflecting the government’s procedures for vetting, training, hiring, reporting and mitigating risks. The later opinion recounts that procedural history. See the court’s 2026 opinion.
In 2026, after DOGE dissolved and its establishing executive order expired, Judge Vargas dismissed the Treasury-access claims as moot. The court said the Treasury DOGE team no longer existed and no DOGE employees remained at Treasury. The dismissal addressed mootness and the availability of relief; it did not decide that the original access was lawful.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to read the ruling’s significance
The headline description that a judge “shuts down” DOGE access captures the central restriction in the February 21, 2025 order, but it needs a timeline to be complete. The injunction initially blocked access to specified sensitive records and systems; a later order allowed access subject to conditions; and the claims were ultimately dismissed as moot after DOGE ended. The initial ruling was a preliminary assessment of the states’ likelihood of success, not a final merits decision.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →
