Trump Administration Acknowledges Possible Misuse of Social Security Data by DOGE Team
New Court Filing Raises Privacy and Oversight Questions
The U.S. government has admitted in a recent court filing that members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) may have accessed and potentially mishandled sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) data during their work inside the agency, according to newly disclosed documents and reporting. This revelation adds new scrutiny to how data was handled by the group and raises concerns about privacy, government oversight, and legal compliance. (TechCrunch)
Here’s what we know so far, why this matters, and what the broader implications might be for data security and trust in government institutions.
What Happened According to Court Filings
The Justice Department revealed in newly released court documents that two members of the DOGE team working at the SSA may have accessed private Social Security information that was supposed to be off limits, and that they shared data using unapproved third-party tools. The context for this activity was a request in 2025 by a political advocacy group seeking to analyze state voter rolls. According to the filing, one of the DOGE team members signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with the advocacy group after being contacted about that request. (TechCrunch)
The group’s stated aim was to find evidence of voter fraud and potentially influence election outcomes in certain states. While neither the DOGE staffers nor the advocacy group are named in the filings, the implication is that highly sensitive data could have been accessed and shared in ways that violated legal and security protocols. (TechCrunch)
How the Data Was Shared and Security Concerns
According to the Justice Department, the SSA later discovered that team members were using an unauthorized third-party server to share data. That server, associated with Cloudflare, was not approved for SSA data storage and fell outside the agency’s security policies. Because of this, investigators are still unsure exactly what information was transmitted or whether it remains on that server. (NBC New York)
Courts and privacy advocates have known for some time that the DOGE team was given broad access to sensitive databases. Earlier legal battles even included a federal judge blocking DOGE’s access pending oversight concerns. However, these new admissions suggest that internal controls may not have worked as intended and that data governance lapses occurred within the agency. (Axios)
Legal and Ethical Implications
As a result of these disclosures, the two involved SSA employees have been referred for possible violations of the Hatch Act, which bars federal workers from engaging in political activities using their official positions. The Justice Department emphasized that it has not found evidence that other SSA employees were aware of the communications with the advocacy group or the agreement that was signed. (TechCrunch)
At the same time, privacy experts and lawmakers are likely to push for stronger safeguards around how deeply government tech initiatives can access and handle personal data. Social Security numbers and related records are among the most sensitive types of information, and exposure of this data could lead to identity theft or other harm if misused. (Forbes)
Broader Context and Why This Matters
The Department of Government Efficiency was created under the Trump administration as a cost-cutting initiative, and its work has been controversial since its inception. Initial bipartisan scrutiny focused on whether cost reduction efforts compromised service quality and compliance within federal agencies. Now, with these revelations about data access and potential misuse, the conversation has shifted toward how federal technology teams are governed, audited, and held accountable when handling data belonging to millions of Americans. (The Verge)
This story also feeds into broader debates about government transparency, data privacy, and the role of political advocacy in shaping policy and public perception. When a team inside a major government agency may have interacted with external groups while accessing highly sensitive information, it raises questions about oversight, policy boundaries, and the protection of citizens’ rights.
