These DOGE activities raise serious questions under federal privacy law, constitutional protections (due process, equal protection, 4th Amend.), administrative procedure & national security protocols.

Question for ChatGPT-4o: Please analyze the article "DOGE Is Planning a Hackathon at the IRS. It Wants Easier Access to Taxpayer Data" and tell me, which suggested activities by DOGE are likely to be unlawful or unconstitutional? List them all and provide robust arguments.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Based on the article "DOGE Is Planning a Hackathon at the IRS. It Wants Easier Access to Taxpayer Data", several activities proposed or implemented by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) raise significant legal and constitutional red flags. Below is a list of such activities along with arguments for why they may be unlawful or unconstitutional:

⚠️ 1. Creating a “mega API” with broad access to IRS taxpayer data

DOGE proposes a single “mega API” that would centralize all IRS data and make it easily accessible via the cloud—even potentially to private entities like Palantir .

Legal/Constitutional concerns:

• Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974: The Act restricts federal agencies from disclosing personal data without written consent and mandates safeguards for how such data is stored and shared.

• Due Process (5th Amendment): Making sensitive personal and financial data widely accessible without clear oversight or redress mechanisms could constitute a violation of citizens' due process rights.

• Unlawful delegation of government functions: If access is extended to private companies like Palantir, this may violate statutory limits on who can handle taxpayer information (see 26 U.S.C. § 6103).

⚠️ 2. Unilateral halting of ongoing IRS modernization efforts

DOGE operative Sam Corcos halted $1.5 billion in IRS engineering work and modernization projects, replacing them with a rapid "30-day" overhaul via hackathon .

Legal/Constitutional concerns:

• Violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act: Federal employees and appointees may not obligate funds or redirect appropriations without Congressional approval.

• Breach of statutory mandates: The IRS is bound by Congressional mandates to maintain taxpayer data security and continuity of operations. Disrupting these systems endangers legal obligations such as timely filing seasons.

• Negligence and abuse of discretion: Rapid, untested implementation risks crashing essential IRS infrastructure and could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for being arbitrary and capricious.

⚠️ 3. Granting non-qualified individuals access to taxpayer data

DOGE operatives (e.g., Gavin Kliger) with no tax or government data experience were granted access to anonymized tax data, and others demanded more detailed, potentially identifiable taxpayer and vendor data .

Legal/Constitutional concerns:

• Violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information): Access to taxpayer data is strictly regulated. Granting unauthorized access—even if read-only—without proper vetting is illegal.

• Potential breach of the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA): Granting system access without security clearances or vetting procedures violates cybersecurity requirements for government systems.

⚠️ 4. Placing key cybersecurity and technology staff on leave

DOGE placed over 50 IRS technologists, including the director of cybersecurity architecture, on administrative leave, leaving IRS systems exposed during the proposed API development .

Legal/Constitutional concerns:

• Compromise of national infrastructure: This move could be interpreted as negligent endangerment of critical infrastructure, subject to review by oversight bodies or IGs.

• Violation of internal agency rules and whistleblower protections: If technologists were sidelined due to disagreement or for raising concerns about legality, it may violate whistleblower protection statutes.

⚠️ 5. Eliminating compartmentalization of IRS systems

DOGE aims to unify IRS systems—previously siloed for security—to allow centralized viewing and comparison with other datasets .

Legal/Constitutional concerns:

• Mass surveillance concerns: Consolidated datasets could facilitate profiling or surveillance, potentially violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches if misused.

• Equal protection risks: If the data is used to target certain groups or regions under the guise of “efficiency,” this could give rise to Equal Protection Clause challenges.

⚠️ 6. Involving Palantir, a private defense contractor with political ties

Palantir is frequently mentioned as a possible DOGE partner in implementing this system, despite its history of military surveillance contracts and connections to Peter Thiel (a Musk associate) .

Legal/Constitutional concerns:

• Conflict of interest: The involvement of politically aligned contractors in sensitive taxpayer data infrastructure could violate federal ethics laws or procurement regulations.

• Undue influence / capture: Government by proxy or capture by private tech firms (especially without open competition) threatens principles of democratic governance and accountability.

Conclusion:

These DOGE activities raise serious questions under federal privacy law, constitutional protections (due process, equal protection, Fourth Amendment), administrative procedure, and national security protocols. If pursued without legislative oversight or legal guardrails, they could provoke lawsuits, congressional inquiries, or even injunctive relief from federal courts.