DOGE Access to SSA Data - Constituent Concerns
Contact Information
Date Contacted: March 2026 Method: Email via Langworthy.house.gov Topic: Concerns about DOGE’s access to Social Security Administration (SSA) data Response Status: Form letter received (submitted to LangworthyWatch Mar 11, 2026 at 1:29 PM) Note: Tracking code not visible — constituent forwarded response text from iPhone without email footer
Background
On August 26, 2025, SSA’s Chief Data Officer Charles Borges filed a whistleblower complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) alleging that DOGE staff uploaded SSA data to a cloud server vulnerable to hackers. The SSA denied the upload occurred. Constituents raised concerns about DOGE’s access to SSA data — which includes Social Security numbers, earnings records, and disability information for hundreds of millions of Americans.
Langworthy’s Response
Response Date: March 2026 (exact date from original email not available; submitted Mar 11)
“Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about reports regarding the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to Social Security Administration (SSA) data. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.”
On DOGE’s creation:
“As you know, on his first day in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order to establish DOGE, and its mission to maximize government efficiency and productivity, as well as modernize federal technology and software.”
On the whistleblower complaint:
“On August 26, 2025, SSA’s Chief Data Officer Charles Borges filed a whistleblower complaint to the Office of Special Counsel alleging that DOGE staff uploaded SSA’s data to a cloud server, vulnerable to hackers. However, the SSA has denied this cloud server upload occurred, and maintained that the agency’s data remains in a secure, internet-isolated location under the supervision of career SSA employees.”
Pivoting to Data Privacy Working Group:
“I understand and share your concerns about data privacy—especially when it comes to the risks posed by large, centralized databases. You may be interested to know that I am a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Data Privacy Working Group, where I am working with my colleagues in Congress to craft a strong, national privacy standard that protects Americans’ rights online while preserving U.S. leadership in emerging technologies.”
On further action:
“While this whistleblower complaint has not been verified, as a Member of the House Oversight Committee, rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should Congress consider any legislation regarding the government’s handling or disclosure of personal data.”
What This Response Does NOT Address
- Whether Langworthy supports investigating DOGE’s SSA access — No stated position on whether Congress should probe the whistleblower complaint
- Whether DOGE should have access to SSA data at all — No position on the underlying question
- The whistleblower’s official standing — Borges filed with the Office of Special Counsel, a federal watchdog; calling the complaint “not verified” without noting its official status omits relevant context
- Specific action Langworthy will take — Committee membership cited, but no hearing, letter, or inquiry mentioned
- Broader DOGE data access pattern — SSA was one of multiple agencies where DOGE sought access to sensitive records; response treats it as isolated
Notable Framing
“This whistleblower complaint has not been verified” — The complaint was filed through official federal whistleblower channels (Office of Special Counsel). Whether its underlying allegations are proven is separate from the complaint’s legitimacy as a formal, protected disclosure. Framing it as “not verified” without that context may understate its significance.
Pivot to national privacy standard — The response redirects from a specific concern (DOGE accessing SSA data) to general work on a future national privacy standard — without addressing what, if anything, that standard would do about executive branch access to existing federal databases.
Pattern: Deflect and Pivot
This letter follows the documented pattern where constituent concerns receive responses that:
- Acknowledge the concern briefly
- Repeat the administration’s rebuttal of the underlying claim
- Pivot to related but non-responsive committee work
- Offer no specific Congressional action
Compare: Social Security Protection (Mar 12) — same day batch; also addresses SSA-adjacent concerns without engaging program solvency or DOGE.
Documents
Note: This entry documents publicly available information from official correspondence. Personal constituent information has been redacted. The response was submitted to LangworthyWatch by the constituent and does not include the original email footer/tracking code.
Last updated: March 14, 2026