The Department of Government Efficiency was supposed to cut waste. Instead, a growing body of evidence suggests that DOGE operatives handled some of the most sensitive data in the federal government with the security protocols of a college study group.
The Social Security Administration's inspector general has opened a formal investigation into allegations that a former DOGE software engineer possessed two tightly restricted databases of U.S. citizens' information — and stored at least one dataset on a personal thumb drive that he allegedly told co-workers he planned to share with a future employer.
What the Whistleblower Alleges
The investigation was triggered by a whistleblower complaint alleging serious mishandling of Social Security Administration data by DOGE personnel. According to reporting based on court filings and whistleblower accounts, the administration admitted in court proceedings that DOGE workers had unauthorized access to sensitive SSA data, used an unapproved third-party service to share SSA data, and engaged in activities outside the scope of SSA's mission — including signing what was described as a "voter data agreement" with a political advocacy group.
That last detail deserves emphasis. DOGE personnel — embedded in the Social Security Administration ostensibly to find waste and improve efficiency — allegedly signed an agreement to share data with a political organization. If confirmed, this would represent one of the most serious breaches of the wall between government data systems and political operations in recent memory.
The Thumb Drive Problem
The physical security implications are equally alarming. SSA databases contain Social Security numbers, dates of birth, earnings histories, disability determinations, and benefits information for virtually every American. This is not metadata or aggregate statistics — it is the most sensitive personally identifiable information the government holds.
The allegation that a DOGE employee extracted this data onto a portable storage device and discussed sharing it with a private employer suggests either a catastrophic failure of security protocols or the absence of meaningful protocols altogether. Either explanation is damning.
The Administration Fights Oversight
Rather than cooperating with oversight, the administration has escalated to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration asked the Court to block a government watchdog group — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — from questioning a senior official and obtaining internal records about DOGE's operations. The legal argument is that DOGE's internal deliberations are protected from disclosure.
This is a pattern. DOGE's activities at the Treasury Department, the Department of Education, the Office of Personnel Management, and other agencies have already sparked litigation. Democratic lawmakers have asked the Government Accountability Office and multiple inspectors general to investigate DOGE's access to sensitive systems. The GAO, after what it described as a slow start in communication with DOGE, says it is now receiving information — but the pace of oversight has not matched the pace of DOGE's access to critical systems.
The Treasury Audit
Separately, the Treasury Department's Office of Inspector General launched an audit of security controls surrounding DOGE's access to the federal government's payment system. This system processes trillions of dollars in federal payments annually — Social Security checks, tax refunds, military pay, vendor payments. Democratic senators raised alarms about the access DOGE was granted to this system, and the inspector general agreed the concerns warranted formal review.
The Savings Claims Don't Add Up Either
While these security scandals unfold, DOGE's central claim — that it is saving taxpayers billions — continues to unravel under scrutiny. DOGE has reported approximately $61 billion in contract terminations and $49 billion in grant terminations. But federal contracting experts have repeatedly challenged the methodology. DOGE uses total potential contract value to estimate savings, which dramatically overstates actual planned spending. A Wall Street Journal analysis found that of roughly $7 billion in claimed contract savings, the actual savings may be closer to $2.6 billion.
The New York Times reported that even after the fiscal year ended, budget experts and congressional appropriators still did not know how much funding had actually been cut or where unused funds had gone. This is not transparency. It is the opposite.
The Real Cost of DOGE
There is a legitimate case for government efficiency reform. Federal spending deserves rigorous scrutiny, and redundant programs should be eliminated. But efficiency reform requires competence, security, and accountability — precisely the qualities that appear absent from DOGE's operations.
When unvetted operatives access the government's most sensitive databases, store citizen data on thumb drives, allegedly share information with political organizations, and then the administration fights tooth and nail to prevent oversight of these activities, the public is right to ask: who is DOGE actually serving?
Government accountability is not a partisan issue. It is the foundational promise of the Republic — that those who wield power do so transparently, lawfully, and in the interest of the people. On every one of those counts, DOGE has questions to answer.