Consumer complaint received 2025-04-10 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Trouble with how payments are being handled
Company: Maximus Federal Services, Inc.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX instructed his staff at the Department of Government Efficiency ( DOGE ) to unlawfully enter the U.S. Department of Education. On XX/XX/XXXX, DOGE agents took control of the Departments internal systems, locking out employees and members of Congress. This lockout was widely covered by major news outlets, including XXXX, XXXX, and other prominent stations. During this unauthorized access, it remains unclear exactly what actions were taken or what specific records or data were accessed, altered, or taken during that time. 

This breach directly impacted my personally identifiable education records, which are maintained by XXXXXXXX XXXX, the U.S. Department of Education, and service providers such as XXXX ( which handles federal student loan servicing ). These records include my academic transcripts, enrollment history, and borrower-related information linked to the federal student loans taken out by my parent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on my behalf. 

The unauthorized access and potential misuse of these records constitutes a violation of several laws, including : Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ( FERPA ), which protects the privacy of student education records. The unauthorized disclosure of my education records and personal information is a direct violation of FERPA. 

The Privacy Act of 1974, which safeguards personal information held by federal agencies. The breach by DOGE agents violates the protections established by this law, as they accessed personal and educational data without authorization. 

The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, which criminalizes the unauthorized use of personal information. Given the potential for misuse of my financial and educational records, this may be applicable to the actions taken by DOGE and XXXX XXXX. 

Given that DOGE is not a legitimate government agency, and XXXX XXXX holds no official authority within either XXXXXXXX XXXX or the Department of Education, this action was entirely unauthorized. The breach of my records, as well as the potential misuse of my parents loan information, is a serious violation of privacy and security. 

I demand an immediate and thorough investigation into the actions taken during this security breach, including identifying what specific data was accessed or stolen, and any potential misuse of both my personal information and my parents financial records. I expect a prompt response detailing the actions being taken to rectify this situation and ensure that such a breach does not happen again. Removal loans off both my credit report and my parents credit ( XXXX XXXX ) report from any reference to this loan or associated financial obligations, as there is uncertainty about the authenticity of the information. This should include the deletion of any and all records related to the loan from both parties credit history, to prevent long-term damage to our financial standing. This should also be communicated to the credit bureaus XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. 

According to the Privacy act Located in our Master Promissory Note ( attachment provided ) 1. Who Can Access the Information : The privacy act outlines that access to your information is authorized for : Federal, state, or local agencies ( but these agencies must have a legitimate purpose as defined under law or regulation ). 

Specific private parties ( like financial institutions, guaranty agencies, and educational institutions ) under controlled circumstances ( e.g., loan servicing, fraud investigation ). 

Consumer reporting agencies for credit-related purposes or loan delinquency tracking. 

XXXX XXXX DOGE ( Department of Government Efficiency ) does not fall into any of these categories. Specifically, there is no legal or formal authorization for DOGE or its personnel to access or handle educational loan records from the Department of Education. DOGE is not listed as an authorized agency or party under the Master Promissory Note 's routine uses. This means that any action by DOGE, including accessing or disclosing loan-related information, would violate the terms set forth in this agreement and would be an unauthorized disclosure. 

2. No Explicit Authorization for DOGE or XXXXXXXX XXXX : The privacy statement does not list DOGE or any organization associated with XXXX XXXX as a permissible third party. The language about disclosures specifies agencies and institutions involved in loan servicing, fraud prevention, and collection efforts, but DOGE is not among them. Additionally, DOGE is not a government agency that could be granted access to federal records like the Department of Educations student loan data. 

3. Legitimate Purposes : The passage details the legitimate purposes for data access and disclosure, such as fraud investigation, verifying eligibility, loan servicing, and collections. DOGE does not have a recognized legal or institutional role within these processes. Unless DOGE had been explicitly granted a role by an appropriate federal authority ( which has not been documented or authorized ), they would have no legal standing to access educational records, including loan records under the Master Promissory Note. 

4. Violation of FERPA and Privacy Act : The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ( FERPA ) also protects educational records from unauthorized access, and based on the information in your complaint, its clear that DOGEs actions likely violated FERPA as well. FERPA limits access to student records without the student 's written consent, except in specific circumstances ( such as disclosures to specific educational officials or authorized third parties ). XXXX XXXX, acting through DOGE, did not have the necessary authorization under FERPA to access these records. 

5. Absence of Transparency on Data Usage : Since there is no clear or documented disclosure allowing DOGE to access or utilize the educational records, it would be safe to say that DOGEs actions likely constitute a violation of not just the Master Promissory Note 's terms but also of privacy and security regulations set out by the Department of Education and relevant federal laws. 

Conclusion : The privacy act of 1974 you from our Master Promissory Note outlines the specific and authorized uses of personal information related to student loans, none of which includes access by DOGE. Therefore, XXXX XXXX XXXX had no legitimate or legal authority to access the Department of Educations records, and their actions represent a clear violation of the terms of the Master Promissory Note, as well as possibly violating federal laws like FERPA and the Privacy Act. 

Reference Information below How XXXX XXXX DOGE Took Over the Education Department, One Office at a Time Published : Wed, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX EST Updated : Wed, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX EST XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Inside DOGE 's Takeover of the Education Department Staffers at the Department of Education worry the Department of Government Efficiency is accessing sensitive information and spreading confusion. 
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Says Department of Education No Longer Exists XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation