DOGE Officials Accused of Misusing Social Security Data in Election Probe
In a significant development concerning data privacy and election integrity, two members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have been accused of improperly accessing and potentially sharing Social Security numbers. According to court documents cited by Politico, this activity was linked to efforts aimed at challenging election results in certain US states.
Background of the Controversial Department
The Department of Government Efficiency was established in January of last year following former President Donald Trump's electoral victory, with the primary objective of reducing federal expenditure. Notably, the department was initially led by tech billionaire Elon Musk. The recent allegations have surfaced through corrections made to earlier testimony by senior officials from the Social Security Administration (SSA) in ongoing legal proceedings. These cases specifically address DOGE's access to sensitive Social Security data.
The court filings have not disclosed the identities of the two DOGE members involved, nor have they named the political advocacy group that reportedly sought the confidential information. This lack of specific identification adds a layer of mystery to the unfolding scandal.
Request to Analyze Voter Rolls
According to the detailed court documents, a political advocacy group contacted the two DOGE members who were working at the SSA in March 2025. The group requested that they analyze state voter rolls which it had previously obtained. Elizabeth Shapiro, a Justice Department official, elaborated on this in the filings, stating, "The advocacy group's stated aim was to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States."
Following these communications, one of the DOGE members, while acting in the capacity of an SSA employee, signed and transmitted a "Voter Data Agreement" to the advocacy group. This action raised immediate red flags because a court order at that time had explicitly restricted DOGE's access to specific SSA systems and data, making such agreements potentially unlawful.
Potential Misuse of Sensitive Information
Shapiro further indicated that the DOGE members may have accessed private information that had been deemed off-limits by a federal court. The filings also suggest that the data in question might have been shared on unapproved third-party servers, compounding concerns about data security and unauthorized dissemination.
"At this time, there is no evidence that SSA employees outside of the involved members of the DOGE Team were aware of the communications with the advocacy group," Shapiro wrote. She added that other SSA staff members were similarly unaware of the voter data agreement, highlighting the isolated nature of these alleged actions within the agency.
It remains unclear whether the two DOGE members ultimately shared Social Security data with the advocacy group. However, emails reviewed by officials indicate that DOGE members "could have been asked to assist the advocacy group by accessing SSA data to match to the voter rolls." This suggests a deliberate attempt to leverage government resources for political purposes.
Legal and Administrative Repercussions
In response to these allegations, the SSA has referred the two DOGE employees for potential violations of the Hatch Act. This federal law prohibits government workers from using their official positions to engage in political activities, underscoring the seriousness of the accusations.
This incident is not the first time DOGE has faced scrutiny over data handling. Last year, a federal judge issued an order blocking DOGE members from accessing SSA systems that contain Social Security numbers, medical records, tax information, and other personal data. Separately, an SSA whistleblower later alleged that DOGE had uploaded hundreds of millions of Social Security records to an unsecured cloud server, raising further alarms about data protection practices within the department.
The ongoing legal cases and these new allegations paint a troubling picture of potential data misuse at the intersection of government efficiency initiatives and political advocacy. As investigations continue, the focus remains on ensuring accountability and safeguarding sensitive personal information from unauthorized access and exploitation.
