Trump Administration Admits DOGE Accessed Private Social Security Data for Political Use

A startling admission in federal court has shattered the silence surrounding the Trump administration’s most secretive cost-cutting initiative. For the first time, government officials have acknowledged that members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) bypassed agency protocols to access the private Social Security records of millions of Americans.

A Breach of Trust: The Secret Agreements

The Department of Justice recently submitted a court filing that marks a stunning reversal of previous government denials. The Social Security Administration (SSA) now admits that DOGE employees – a group led by billionaire Elon Musk – entered into secret agreements to share sensitive personal data with unidentified political advocacy groups.

The aim of these secret agreements was reportedly to assist in efforts to overturn election results in specific states. This revelation has sent shockwaves through Washington, as it suggests that data collected for the administration of retirement benefits was diverted for partisan political warfare.

“I’m flabbergasted,” stated University of Virginia privacy law expert Danielle Citron. “If that information is shared willingly and knowingly and they are sharing without the reason they collected it, it’s a violation of the Privacy Act.”

The SSA further acknowledged that DOGE members utilized an unsanctioned, third-party service called Cloudflare to transfer and store this data. Because this server exists outside of official government channels, agency officials admit they have no way of knowing exactly what information was shared or if it still exists on private servers.

How We Got Here: The Privacy Act of 1974

To understand the gravity of this breach, one must look at the legal framework designed to prevent exactly this kind of executive overreach. Following the Watergate scandal, Congress moved to ensure that the federal government could never again weaponize the personal data of its citizens for political gain.

• 1974: Congress passes the Privacy Act, which establishes a code of “fair information practices” that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies.
• The Mandate: The Act explicitly forbids federal employees from accessing or sharing data unless it is strictly necessary to carry out their official duties.
• The Penalty: Knowing and willful violations of the Privacy Act can result in criminal penalties and civil lawsuits against the government.

The Social Security number was originally created in 1936 solely for the purpose of tracking earnings for retirement benefits. Over the decades, it has evolved into a universal identifier, making the SSA database the most sensitive and protected repository of personal information in the United States.

The current admission suggests that the “need to know” standard was discarded in favor of a “fishing expedition” for fraud – an expedition that found no evidence of widespread waste but left the door open for massive privacy violations.

The Whistleblower and the Hatch Act

The exposure of this data breach is largely due to the efforts of Charles Borges, a former chief data officer and whistleblower who first raised concerns months ago. Borges warned Congress that DOGE was storing sensitive data in an unsafe environment, a claim that the SSA initially denied before its recent court-ordered admission.

Beyond the privacy concerns, the SSA has made referrals for potential Hatch Act violations. The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, is a federal law that prohibits civil service employees from engaging in political activity while on duty or using their official authority to interfere with an election.

• Political Schemes: The court filing describes a “scheme” where DOGE appointees allegedly shared data with political groups to influence election outcomes.
• Encrypted Files: In early March, a DOGE staffer reportedly sent an encrypted file containing the personal information of approximately 1,000 people to other DOGE members via unauthorized channels.
• Lack of Oversight: These DOGE members were never confirmed by Congress or even publicly identified, yet they wielded power over the most intimate data points of American life.

The Supreme Court and the Judicial Battle

The legal struggle over DOGE’s access to SSA data has reached the highest levels of the American judiciary. Earlier this year, a lower court judge issued an injunction to block DOGE from accessing the database, noting that the operation appeared to be a “fishing expedition” based on little more than suspicion.

However, the Supreme Court later lifted that injunction, allowing DOGE to continue its work while the lawsuit proceeded. The latest court filing reveals that even while the temporary restraining order was in effect, DOGE employees continued to access the data, raising serious questions about the administration’s respect for judicial boundaries.

This conflict highlights a fundamental constitutional tension. On one side is the theory of the “Unitary Executive,” which suggests the President has near-total control over federal agencies and their data. On the other side is the principle of Separation of Powers, where Congress and the Judiciary serve as essential checks against the abuse of executive authority.

The Stakes of a Digital Panopticon

If the federal government can bypass the Privacy Act to share Social Security data with political allies, the very concept of a private life in America is at risk. Privacy experts warn that this breach could serve as a blueprint for a “Digital Panopticon,” where the state uses its vast administrative resources to monitor and manipulate the electorate.

The Social Security Administration has stated it remains “dedicated to protecting sensitive personal data,” but these words ring hollow following an admission that they were unaware of secret data-sharing agreements for months. The failure of the agency to monitor DOGE members – who were essentially acting as a “shadow government” within the SSA – represents a historic collapse of administrative oversight.

“In another administration, this would have prompted at least a DOJ investigation,” said John Davisson of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

As the lawsuit moves forward, the focus will shift to accountability. Will the DOGE appointees who engaged in this scheme be prosecuted? Or will the administration successfully argue that the President’s cost-cutting mandate supersedes the privacy rights of 330 million Americans?

A Precedent for Future Overreach

The DOGE/SSA breach sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. If the “cost-cutting” label can be used to bypass the Privacy Act, then any agency – from the IRS to the FBI – could theoretically be opened up to political appointees under the guise of efficiency.

• The IRS: Could taxpayer records be shared with advocacy groups to target political donors?
• The Census: Could demographic data be manipulated to influence redistricting in favor of a specific party?
• Health and Human Services: Could private medical data be used to vet political appointees or judge the loyalty of federal workers?

The Constitution was designed to prevent the centralization of power because the Founders understood that power, once gained, is rarely surrendered. The DOGE operation was sold to the public as a way to “drain the swamp,” but the recent court filings suggest it may have simply created a new, more dangerous reservoir of unchecked executive power.

The resolution of this case will define the limits of executive power in the digital age. For a nation built on the idea that a man’s home – and his data – is his castle, the admission that a cost-cutting commission used Social Security records for political gain is a warning that the castle walls are thinner than we thought.