Reed Exposes Patel’s Evasion on DOGE Data Access

WASHINGTON — A tense exchange on Capitol Hill this week raised fresh questions about who controls the vast amounts of personal data being gathered across the federal government — and whether any single authority is accountable for protecting it.

During a Senate hearing, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island sharply questioned F.B.I. Director Kash Patel about the activities of Doge, a government-linked initiative that has been moving through federal agencies collecting and consolidating large volumes of data. Mr. Reed warned that the effort, which is already the subject of multiple lawsuits, could expose Americans to serious risks if left unchecked.

At the center of the dispute was a series of basic but unresolved questions: Who authorized Doge’s access to sensitive information? Do all of its workers have appropriate security clearances? Where does the data go once it is removed from agency systems? And who is responsible for intervening if the operation crosses legal boundaries?

Mr. Patel’s answers, while measured, appeared to frustrate lawmakers. He repeatedly emphasized that the F.B.I. has authority only over its own systems and personnel, and that other agencies are responsible for managing their own data and clearance processes.

“As far as it relates to the F.B.I., I can assure you,” Mr. Patel said when asked whether Doge workers handling bureau data had proper clearances. But when pressed about other agencies, he acknowledged that he did not know who had been approved or where data outside the F.B.I. was being stored.

For Mr. Reed, that response underscored a deeper problem. Doge’s stated goal, he said, is to create a centralized data repository spanning much of the federal government — a move that concentrates sensitive information in ways that could be exploited for fraud, surveillance or political interference.

“When something operates across the entire government, ‘that’s not my lane’ is not a sufficient answer,” Mr. Reed said. He argued that centralization without clear oversight creates vulnerabilities that are difficult to reverse once data has been copied or moved off secure systems.

The senator also raised concerns about reports that Doge personnel may be using their own computers when accessing agency systems, potentially allowing sensitive information to leave government-controlled environments. Mr. Patel said he was not aware of such practices at the F.B.I., but conceded that he could not speak for other departments.

“I can’t tell the Department of Homeland Security how to handle their data,” Mr. Patel said, adding that such decisions fall under the authority of agency heads and Cabinet secretaries.

That answer prompted a sharper rebuke from Mr. Reed, who noted that the F.B.I. director is effectively the nation’s chief law enforcement official. If data is being accessed or stored unlawfully, Mr. Reed argued, the bureau should be prepared to investigate — even if the conduct originates outside the F.B.I.

Mr. Patel replied that if there were evidence of a crime, F.B.I. agents would open a case. But he characterized the senator’s concerns as hypothetical, a framing Mr. Reed rejected.

“This is not hypothetical,” Mr. Reed said. “This is happening every day.”

The exchange revealed what critics describe as a dangerous gap in accountability. While each agency may be following its own rules, there appears to be no single authority charged with ensuring that Doge’s government-wide data collection is lawful, secure and limited in scope.

Data security experts say the issue is not merely where information is stored, but who has access to it and under what conditions. Even brief or unauthorized access can create lasting risks, particularly if data sets are copied, aggregated or transferred beyond secure networks.

“Waiting until a clear crime has occurred defeats the purpose of prevention,” Mr. Reed said, warning that once sensitive information is consolidated, “it is extraordinarily difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.”

Supporters of the administration argue that modernizing data systems can improve efficiency and reduce waste. But critics counter that speed and scale must be matched with robust safeguards — especially when the data involves millions of Americans’ financial, personal and civic records.

The most striking moment of the hearing came when Mr. Patel acknowledged that he could not assure the committee that Doge’s activities across the government were secure or lawful. For lawmakers concerned about privacy and civil liberties, that admission was unsettling.

“This isn’t about partisan suspicion,” Mr. Reed said. “It’s about whether the protections Americans expect are being bypassed in plain sight.”

As Congress considers whether new legislation or oversight mechanisms are needed, the hearing highlighted a growing tension in Washington: how to balance innovation and efficiency with transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

For now, the questions raised by Mr. Reed remain unanswered. Who approved Doge’s sweeping access? Where is the data being kept? And who, ultimately, is watching the watchers?

Until those questions are resolved, lawmakers warned, the risks to public trust — and to Americans’ personal information — may continue to grow.