The Justice Department disclosed this week that a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employee improperly shared sensitive Social Security information without the knowledge or approval of agency leadership. The revelation came in a court filing submitted Tuesday, marking a significant admission by the federal government.
According to a court filing, DOGE shared Social Security data with an unauthorized server, violating established security protocols designed to protect some of the most sensitive personal information held by the federal government.
Unapproved Server Raises Data Security Concerns
The filing states that the Social Security Administration (SSA) has not yet been able to determine exactly what data was transferred through the third-party server, which was not authorized to store official agency records. Officials also remain uncertain whether the information still exists on that server or who may have accessed it.
This disclosure represents the Trump administration’s first formal acknowledgment that DOGE employees mishandled Social Security data—an allegation that had previously been raised by a senior SSA official last summer. At the time, DOGE defended its access to Americans’ records by claiming it was necessary to identify and eliminate fraud.
Whistleblower Warned of Risks to Millions of Americans
Those concerns were echoed in a whistleblower complaint filed by Charles Borges, who served as the Social Security Administration’s chief data officer from late January through late August. Borges warned that DOGE employees had placed the personal records of more than 300 million Americans at risk by creating a duplicate copy of SSA data on a vulnerable cloud-based server.
According to the disclosure, the copied database included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, citizenship information, parents’ names, and other highly sensitive details. Borges alleged that the system lacked meaningful security oversight from the SSA and had no reliable way to track who accessed the data or when.
The agency denied the whistleblower’s claims, and Borges was later forced to involuntarily resign from his position.
Allegations of Political Misuse of Federal Data
The court filing also revealed a separate and troubling incident involving a DOGE employee who agreed to assist a political advocacy group in reviewing voter rolls. The stated purpose was to search for voter fraud as part of an effort to overturn election results in certain states.
While the filing did not identify the advocacy group or specify which elections were targeted, it noted that internal email communications suggested DOGE team members may have been asked to use SSA data to cross-reference voter rolls. However, officials said they have not yet found evidence that Social Security data was actually shared with the group.
Hatch Act Referrals and Judicial Oversight
Because federal law prohibits government employees from using their official positions for election-related activities, referrals under the Hatch Act were sent to the government ethics office for further investigation, the Justice Department said.
This episode was one of several examples cited by the department showing that DOGE employees handled sensitive data in ways that were not disclosed to a federal judge overseeing the legality of DOGE’s data access. In some instances, those actions may have conflicted with court orders limiting how that information could be used.
Voter Data Agreement Raises New Questions
The filing further disclosed the existence of a “Voter Data Agreement” signed by an unnamed DOGE employee and sent to the advocacy group in March. That agreement appears to contradict earlier claims made by the administration about why DOGE needed access to Social Security records, particularly during arguments before U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander.
The lawsuit, brought by Democracy Forward on behalf of labor unions, challenges several Trump administration policies related to data access and oversight.
Notably, the Social Security Administration said it did not become aware of the agreement until November, when it discovered it during an internal records review unrelated to the case.
Ongoing Legal Uncertainty
Judge Hollander initially blocked DOGE team members from accessing SSA records, citing concerns over privacy and oversight. That restriction was later lifted after the Supreme Court restored DOGE’s access to the data.
The Social Security Administration declined to comment on the latest court filing, leaving unresolved questions about accountability, data security, and the long-term implications for millions of Americans whose personal information may have been exposed.
