What We Sought
In February 2025, Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit against the Social Security Administration (AFSCME v. SSA) after uncovering facts showing that Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) operatives had gained access to private Social Security records. According to documents filed in the case, DOGE personnel entered SSA systems without appropriate legal authority, bypassed key data safeguards, and placed the private information of millions of Americans – including bank account numbers, health records, wage histories, and immigration status – at risk of exposure, theft, or abuse. According to a key notice filed in the litigation, the SSA DOGE team received a request from a “political advocacy group” to “analyze state voter rolls that the advocacy group had acquired.” The filing indicates that one of the DOGE personnel at SSA signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with the advocacy group and transmitted the executed agreement on March 24, 2025.
In Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed on January 22 and on January 27, we sought a copy of the “Voter Data Agreement” and who it was signed by; the two Hatch Act referrals sent by SSA to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel regarding the staff that had communicated with the group; and communications between SSA DOGE staff and election-denying organizations. These requests seek records that are particularly urgent to uncover any improper sharing of protected data for apparently political purposes in advance of coming elections.
What We Received
After filing a FOIA lawsuit on March 23, 2026, following SSA’s failure to respond to our requests within the time period required by law, SSA last week produced 61 pages of records including redacted forms of the Hatch Act complaints, which include the voter data transfer agreement and transmission emails, as well as email correspondence with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) officials related to individuals’ data. The documents are heavily redacted – including the extensive use of law enforcement exemptions indicating ongoing investigations as well as the use of personal privacy and deliberative process privilege exemptions.
Nonetheless, these records highlight clear and frequent communications between SSA and the political advocacy group between March and May 2025, with the signed agreement committing the parties to using the data for political parties or purposes – and apparently the use of an external entity for law enforcement investigations, which remain ongoing.
- In the email correspondence with HSI, the sender appears to have transmitted to HSI a file with data on 971 SSA beneficiaries, to be matched with DHS data. The sender copies Steve Davis, Elon Musk’s second-in-command during the height of DOGE operations in the early months of Trump’s term.
- The Hatch Act complaint, although heavily redacted, indicates that an employee was referred for “using one’s official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election” and “engaging in political activity while on duty, in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or while suing a vehicle owned or leased by the United States government.”
- The “Voter Data Transfer Agreement” and transmission emails, produced with the Hatch Act complaint, reflect correspondence on March 24, 2025, between an external party and SSA (presumably via DOGE personnel) confirming that the external group offered to “discuss what data you would like access to, as we have several data sets” as soon as their “standard data agreement” was executed – after which they promised to “facilitate rapid transmission” of the data.
- The “Voter Data Transfer Agreement” itself contains language requiring the use of the data “ONLY for purposes relating to a political or political party activity, a political campaign or an election, for revising election district boundaries, or purposes specifically authorized by law.” Although the identity of the political advocacy group remains an open question given the heavy redactions, the agreement contains indications–including definitions taken from Arizona regulations, striking similarities to another voter data agreement posted by the Maricopa County GOP, and relevant provisions in Arizona law allowing state and county party chairs to request voter data–that the group is based in Arizona.
- Additional emails reveal that the external entity transmitted the information to SSA in a password-protected linked location, and stated “We have spent many hours on many aspects of [redacted] elections. Please let us know if you have any questions, if you need other data, or if you have any theories you would like to discuss. We live for this!”
- The correspondence between the external entity and SSA continued through April and May, with the exchanges being virtually entirely redacted under (b)(7)(A) exemptions usually reserved for ongoing law enforcement investigations, and highly unusual in the SSA context given SSA is not a law enforcement agency, not to mention unusual in exchanges with non-governmental advocacy groups. One email indicates “We look forward to feedback from your review,” another indicating “I would love to talk about [redacted]”, as well as a large portion marked “CONFIDENTIAL – HIGHLY SENSITIVE – PLEASE DO NOT SHARE.” One email from May contained an attachment titled “Election Fraud Examples that Affected Outcomes of Elections (1).docx”.
