Full story
DOJ disclosure on DOGE
The Justice Department disclosed in court that two members of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), embedded at the Social Security Administration (SSA), communicated with a right-wing political advocacy group seeking to "overturn election results."
“A Department of Justice court filing in a lawsuit over Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) activities inside the Social Security Administration says two DOGE staffers secretly communicated with a right‑wing advocacy group seeking to “overturn election results.””
The filing says at least one DOGE staffer signed a "Voter Data Agreement" in March 2025 that may have involved matching Americans' Social Security information to state voter rolls.
The DOJ filing—filed by civil division official Elizabeth Shapiro and revealed in ongoing litigation over DOGE's work inside the SSA—says the advocacy group contacted the DOGE employees asking them to analyze state voter lists for alleged voter fraud, though the government has not yet found definitive proof that SSA data were actually shared.
Alleged SSA data mishandling
Filings and whistleblower reports say DOGE staff used unapproved third-party servers and a vulnerable cloud environment to store or transmit SSA data.
SSA investigators found Cloudflare links used for sharing during a March 7–17 window and said the agency cannot yet determine what, if anything, remains on that server.
Whistleblower complaints from SSA's former chief data officer allege DOGE attempted to make a live cloud copy of the Social Security database containing names, addresses, birth dates and other personally identifying information.
If true, that could expose millions to identity theft or require costly reissuance of numbers.
DOJ and SSA reviews, however, say they have not established definitive proof that data were transferred to the advocacy group.
DOGE legal oversight timeline
SSA referred the two DOGE employees to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for possible Hatch Act violations after discovering the contacts in an unrelated November review.
“Court filings disclosed Friday show that the Social Security Administration referred two employees of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to the Justice Department for potential Hatch Act violations after those employees had contact with an unnamed advocacy group that seeks to “overturn election results in certain states,” Politico reports.”
Those referrals and a DOJ court filing are part of broader litigation and oversight scrutiny that already produced a temporary restraining order and other court actions earlier in the dispute over DOGE’s access to data.
Filings and reporting note that one Voter Data Agreement was signed on March 24, days after a Maryland judge issued a temporary restraining order limiting DOGE’s access.
DOGE ended operations in November 2025.
Coverage and institutional fallout
Different outlets frame the political and institutional stakes differently; some highlight DOGE's affiliation with Elon Musk and present the matter as part of wider concerns about political influence within agencies.
Other outlets underscore immediate data-security and legal risks, and reporting notes internal fallout at the SSA, with MS NOW reporting that Acting SSA Commissioner Michelle King resigned after refusing a DOGE request.
Whistleblower claims have amplified calls for transparency and stronger oversight of third-party data handling, and the DOJ's cautious language about lacking definitive proof that data were shared contrasts with whistleblower and investigative accounts warning of a more serious breach.
Investigation status and uncertainties
Key facts remain unresolved.
“It remains unclear from the filing whether the employees actually shared any SSA data.”
The Department of Justice and the Social Security Administration say they have not yet established that SSA data were actually transferred to the advocacy group.
Investigators continue to assess whether anything remains on the unapproved server.
The Office of Special Counsel will review the Hatch Act referrals.
Because sources emphasize different aspects—some prioritize procedural uncertainty while others raise alarm about alleged mass data copying—readers should note both the confirmed procedural steps in the filings and the unresolved technical and forensic questions.