Connect with us

News

The government is investigating new claims that DOGE misused Social Security data

Published

on

The government is investigating new claims that DOGE misused Social Security data

A sign in front of the entrance of the Security Administration’s main campus on March 19, 2025 in Woodlawn, Maryland. Congress and the SSA’s Inspector General are investigating whistleblower claims about whether Department of Government Efficiency staff may have misused Social Security data.

Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

An internal government watchdog and members of Congress are separately investigating new allegations that a Department of Government Efficiency staffer potentially misused sensitive Social Security data.

The Social Security Administration’s inspector general notified the leaders of several House and Senate committees on Mar. 6 that it is reviewing an anonymous complaint “on matters relating to the potential misuse of SSA data by a former DOGE employee, among other allegations,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by NPR.

This week, Congressional Democrats investigating DOGE’s access to Social Security data also announced an expanded probe after receiving whistleblower information alleging a former DOGE software engineer at SSA claimed to have retained copies of sensitive databases filled with personal information about almost every living American. The whistleblower’s allegations were first reported by the Washington Post on Tuesday.

Advertisement

According to the Post‘s reporting, the former DOGE employee claimed at least one database was held on a personal thumb drive, and claimed to have retained “God-level” access to SSA systems, the whistleblower alleged. The former staffer also allegedly told colleagues they wanted to share the data with their private-sector employer, the Post reported. NPR has not reviewed the whistleblower complaint.

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the House Oversight committee’s top Democrat, called the allegations “deeply disturbing” and said they show the Trump administration’s “callous disregard for the safety and security of Americans’ most sensitive information.”

“Not only has an ex-DOGE bro been accused of running around with the Social Security information of every American on a flash drive, he also may have the ability to edit and manipulate data at the Social Security Administration at will,” Garcia wrote in a statement.

The Office of the Inspector General for the Social Security Administration declined to comment, saying it doesn’t confirm or deny the existence of law enforcement investigations.

The inspector general’s office told lawmakers in its Mar. 6 letter that it was not sharing further information about the anonymous complaint because that “risks jeopardizing any investigation and potentially chills future complainants from submitting anonymous allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse.”

Advertisement

An unnamed spokesperson for SSA disputed the whistleblower’s claims in an email to NPR.

“The allegations by a singular anonymous source have been strongly refuted by all named parties – SSA, the former employee, and the company. Even the Washington Post admitted they could not verify the information – because it is not true,” the spokesperson said. (The Post story did not name the former DOGE employee or the company they work for.)

“SSA is focused on continuing our digital-first transformation to deliver better, faster service for every American,” the spokesperson continued, and went on to disparage the Washington Post.

Democrats in Congress call for more investigations

The whistleblower alleged the former DOGE staffer claimed to have retained copies of two databases, NUMIDENT and the Death Master File, according to the Post‘s report.

The NUMIDENT database contains sensitive records for almost every American alive today, including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, place of birth and parents’ names. The Death Master File includes records for individuals who have been reported as deceased.

Advertisement
An aerial of The Social Security Administration's main campus in Woodlawn, Maryland. The agency is investigating claims that DOGE employees misused sensitive personal data for millions of Americans.

An aerial of The Social Security Administration’s main campus in Woodlawn, Maryland. The agency is investigating claims that DOGE employees misused sensitive personal data for millions of Americans.

Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Advertisement

As part of the House Oversight Committee Democrats’ ongoing investigation into DOGE, Garcia is now asking the Social Security Administration to answer questions about DOGE’s data access and wants former DOGE staffers affiliated with SSA to contact the committee to “clarify the facts surrounding DOGE use of Americans’ sensitive data.”

Other Democratic lawmakers who received the letter from the SSA inspector general also called for investigations into the whistleblower’s allegations.

“These allegations describe one of the largest known data breaches in American history, perpetrated by Trump appointees for the explicit purpose of weaponizing Americans’ sensitive personal data for political gain,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement. “There must be a full public accounting of this breach at Social Security, including justice for anyone who committed or enabled criminal theft of Americans’ data.”

Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) and Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), who sit on the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement: “These continued revelations demand a full investigation with accountability if wrongdoing is confirmed.”

Advertisement

A growing pattern of DOGE data access concerns

The OIG investigation and the whistleblower complaint come after the Social Security Administration disclosed in January that DOGE employees secretly and improperly shared sensitive personal data in 2025 and that the agency could not verify the extent of the violations.

The January disclosure was made in an ongoing court fight over whether DOGE improperly gained access to SSA data and abused that access. The disclosure also said two unnamed DOGE employees were referred to a federal watchdog for potentially violating the Hatch Act, which bars government employees from using their job for political activity.

The court filing also said SSA found that the employees communicated with a political advocacy group about matching Social Security data with state voter rolls.

DOGE team members also circumvented the agency’s IT rules and improperly shared data on outside servers, sent private records to other DOGE staffers outside the agency and had access to some data even after a judge temporarily blocked access.

Charles Borges, the former chief data officer at SSA, filed his own whistleblower disclosure last year alleging DOGE staffers improperly copied a dataset of more than 300 million Americans’ information into a virtual database without following security protocols.

Advertisement

Borges’ complaint said that last summer, a former DOGE employee at the SSA requested that the agency make a copy of its NUMIDENT database to a private cloud server that would effectively give DOGE officials unfettered access to the data.

On Wednesday, Borges told NPR the allegations made in the new whistleblower complaint would have “generational consequences” if true.

“This is exactly the scenario that kept me up at night. An irrecoverable loss of the entirety of our personal data. Once that data has ‘left the building’, you cannot close Pandora’s Box again,” Borges said.

“The loss of this data would not be ‘just another data breach,’ but could represent a structural failure of our identity system,” he said. “It could require significant federal action, counterintelligence planning and response, and the consideration of a complete redesign of how identity works in the United States.”

Have a tip to share with NPR? Reach out through encrypted communications on Signal to Stephen Fowler at stphnfwlr.25, Jude Joffe-Block at JudeJB.10 and Shannon Bond at shannonbond.01. Please use a nonwork device.

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Advertisement

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending