The US Department of Justice has disclosed that members of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team may have accessed Social Security Administration (SSA) data that was restricted by a federal court and may have stored or shared government information using unauthorized third-party servers.
The revelation emerged in a court filing submitted last week and marks a notable shift in the government’s position after months of defending DOGE’s access to sensitive federal databases. The filing raises new questions about how closely DOGE followed court-imposed limits and whether sufficient safeguards were in place to protect personal data held by one of the federal government’s most sensitive agencies.
A High-Profile Initiative Under Legal Pressure
DOGE was launched with strong backing from Elon Musk and the Trump administration, billed as an aggressive effort to identify inefficiencies, waste, and fraud across federal agencies. To accomplish that goal, the team sought broad access to internal government systems, including databases maintained by the Social Security Administration.
From the outset, DOGE’s reach triggered alarm among privacy advocates, labor unions, and civil liberties groups. Lawsuits soon followed, arguing that granting an outside team sweeping access to Social Security records put millions of Americans at risk and exceeded legal boundaries. Federal judges responded by placing limits on what DOGE could access and how the data could be used.
The Justice Department’s latest filing suggests those restrictions may not have been fully observed.
Data Access Beyond Court-Approved Limits
According to the filing, the SSA and DOJ determined that certain DOGE team members may have accessed information that was explicitly off-limits under an existing court order. In addition, some agency data may have been transferred to or stored on an unapproved third-party server, a move that bypassed standard federal security protocols.
The SSA acknowledged it has been unable to determine precisely what information was shared through the external server or whether the data still exists there. That uncertainty has heightened concerns among critics, who say it reflects a breakdown in oversight and accountability.
The DOJ characterized the disclosures as “corrections” to the court record, indicating that earlier statements made during the litigation did not fully capture the scope of DOGE’s data handling practices.
Contact With Political Advocacy Group Comes to Light
The filing also revealed that at least two DOGE employees had interactions with a political advocacy group involved in efforts to contest election outcomes. According to the court document, the group asked the employees to analyze data drawn from state voter rolls.
One of the DOGE employees signed what was described as a “Voter Data Agreement” with the advocacy organization. The filing did not explain the contents of the agreement or clarify the circumstances under which it was signed, including whether government systems or time were involved.
The Justice Department stated there was no evidence that Social Security data was shared with the advocacy group. Still, the involvement of DOGE personnel with politically charged activities raised immediate concerns within the Social Security Administration.
Hatch Act Concerns and Referrals
As a result of the contact with the political group, the SSA referred both employees for potential violations of the Hatch Act. The law restricts political activities by federal employees to prevent the use of public office or resources for partisan purposes.
While a referral does not automatically lead to disciplinary action, it can trigger investigations and potential penalties if violations are confirmed. The DOJ filing did not indicate whether any formal disciplinary process has begun or what consequences the employees might face.
Gaps in Data Security Oversight
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the disclosure is the SSA’s inability to fully account for the data that may have been shared outside approved systems. The agency stated it could not determine the scope of the information transferred, whether it was deleted, or whether it was further disseminated.
Social Security data includes highly sensitive personal details, and even limited exposure can have serious consequences. Privacy experts have long warned that unauthorized access to such records increases the risk of identity theft, fraud, and long-term damage to public trust in government institutions.
The lack of clear answers has intensified criticism of DOGE’s operational controls and the administration’s oversight of the project.
DOJ Pushes Back on Claims of Misrepresentation
In its filing to the US District Court for Maryland, the Justice Department maintained that earlier statements made by the SSA and the government were accurate at the time they were presented.
The DOJ argued that the new disclosures do not amount to a wholesale reversal but rather clarify and refine previous representations. Even so, plaintiffs and watchdog groups have seized on the corrections as evidence that the government downplayed risks associated with DOGE’s data access during earlier phases of the case.
Neither the White House nor the Social Security Administration provided immediate public comment following the filing. The lack of response has fueled speculation about internal tensions over DOGE’s scope, governance, and future.
As the legal case continues, the court is expected to press for more detailed explanations of DOGE’s data practices, internal controls, and compliance with judicial orders.
