Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey has joined a coalition of 12 state attorneys general in opposing the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s decision to grant Elon Musk and his newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to sensitive financial and personal data of American citizens.

In a joint statement released Thursday, the attorneys general condemned DOGE’s cost-cutting measures, calling the initiative an “unlawful, unprecedented, and unacceptable” violation of privacy and constitutional protections.

So far, the highest-profile spending reductions have targeted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a $50 billion per year government sub-agency that exists almost exclusively to fund left-wing political and social organizations, as well as programs that resemble CIA operations.

“In the past week, the U.S. Department of the Treasury has given Elon Musk access to Americans’ personal private information, state bank account data, and other information that is some of our country’s most sensitive data,” the statement reads.

Attorney General Frey’s concern over how sensitive information might be handled is not without irony considering his own office’s custody of personal identifying information.

In April 2023, Frey admitted to carrying on an 8-month long undisclosed affair with a subordinated Assistant Attorney General while he was still in a relationship and living with his girlfriend of 12 years.

In an attempt to investigate whether Frey’s extracurricular relationship with the AAG, Ariel Gannon, corresponded with any salary boosts for Frey’s underling, the Maine Wire submitted a request for payroll records under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA).

Although Maine’s government offices are typically sticklers when it comes to redacting information from public record troves, in this instance, the Attorney General’s Office forgot to redact Gannon’s Social Security Number (SSN) from the records distributed to this outlet and potentially other record requesters.

Within minutes of identifying the mishandled personal information, the Maine Wire promptly performed our civic duty and informed a Deputy Attorney General of the error. As the Deputy AG requested, we promptly deleted the problematic information.

“Thank you again for your prompt heads-up below about the previous .pdf,” the Deputy AG said. “I very much appreciate your communication about and deletion of that file.”

In a separate and more severe instance of mishandled data, the state of Maine exposed the personal information of virtually every resident, including Social Security Numbers, dates of birth, driver’s license/state identification number, and taxpayer identification number and even medical data, by relying on an unreliable third-party vendor to transfer such sensitive files.

While the state discovered the breach of Mainers’ personal information in May 2023, it was not until several months later, in November 2023, that state officials informed residents and non-residents that sloppy record-keeping practices had exposed their information to potentially malevolent actors.

When it comes to the Trump Administration’s handling of personal information, Frey has perhaps learned that government employees can sometimes make errors that put American taxpayers sensitive info at risk.

The coalition letter Frey joined argues that DOGE lacks any legal authority to access federal information systems and accuses Musk’s team of seeking control over federal payment systems in order to block critical government payments supporting health care, childcare, and other essential services.

“As the richest man in the world, Elon Musk is not used to being told ‘no,’ but in our country, no one is above the law,” the statement continues. “The President does not have the power to give away our private information to anyone he chooses, and he cannot cut federal payments approved by Congress.”

As many political commentators have suggested since the inception of DOGE, the Trump-Musk effort to trim federal spending and the new fight with left-wing attorneys general is likely to spur a legal battle and potential Supreme Court case over the Congressional Budget Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the limits of presidential authority.

The ICA, sometimes known as the Impoundment Act, is a Nixon Era law passed in response to President Richard Nixon’s refusal to spend monies allocated by Congress. Under the terms of the Act, President’s are required to spend money as directed by Congress; however, the if the president wishes to delay or rescind spending he can submit a formal request to Congress. The Congress then has 45 days to approve or deny the request, and without explicit approval the previously allocated funding must be released.

However, the Supreme Court has never had the opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of the Impoundment Act or the mechanism for enforcing it, and Trump’s supporters have anticipated a legal fight over the president’s “power of the purse” — a legal fight they expect to win.

Lower courts and federal officials have typically upheld its provisions. In 2020, for example, the Government Accountability Office ruled that then-President Donald Trump had violated the Impoundment Act by delaying military aid to Ukraine without first consulting Congress.

Trump and his supporters, however, have signaled interest in having a high-profile legal contest over the president’s discretionary control over spending. The Commander-in-Chief is likely to argue that the constitutionally allocated powers to execute and enforce the laws grant the president the power to interpret spending statutes on domestic issues, while his authority over matters of foreign policy and national security trumps congressional say-so.

The attorneys general vowed in Thursday’s letter to challenge the decision in court, citing violations of privacy rights and unlawful interference with federally approved financial programs — a challenge to DOGE that had not been anticipated by many popular political analysts.

The coalition includes attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont, in addition to Maine.

The lawsuit, expected to be filed in the coming days, aims to block DOGE’s access to federal financial systems and prevent any further interference with state-administered funds.