In a Jan. 16, 2026 court filing, the Justice Department disclosed that in March 2025 two employees from the Social Security Administration’s DOGE team communicated with an outside advocacy group that said it wanted to “find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.” One of those staffers, the filing says, signed a “Voter Data Agreement” on March 24, 2025, and may have been asked to use SSA records to match state voter rolls. The filing also notes that SSA reviewed emails suggesting a request to access data but, as of the filing date, had not confirmed that SSA information was actually shared.
Key Takeaways
- The DOJ filing dated Jan. 16, 2026 corrects an earlier March declaration about the scope of DOGE’s work and discloses previously omitted actions by two DOGE employees.
- One DOGE team member signed a “Voter Data Agreement” and sent the executed agreement to the advocacy group on March 24, 2025.
- SSA reviewed email communications indicating the advocacy group sought SSA data to match voter rolls, but the agency said it has no confirmed evidence that data were transferred.
- SSA made two Hatch Act referrals to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in December 2025 related to the employees’ conduct.
- The filing states SSA did not know about the communications or the agreement until November 2025, when it learned of the arrangement during an unrelated review.
- The employees and the advocacy group remain unnamed in the filing; the DOJ did not provide an immediate external comment.
Background
The DOGE team is an internal SSA group referenced in agency filings as having technical or data-related responsibilities; specifics of its mandate were described in a March declaration that the Jan. 16, 2026 filing amends. The advocacy group involved had told the SSA that it had acquired state voter rolls and intended to analyze them to pursue allegations of voter fraud and efforts to overturn results in particular states. The March 2025 contact occurred in the months after the 2024 federal elections, a period during which numerous outside groups intensified scrutiny of voter rolls and election administration.
Federal rules constrain how SSA data may be used and who may access it; interactions between agency staff and outside political actors raise potential Hatch Act and privacy concerns. The Office of Special Counsel enforces the Hatch Act, which limits certain political activities by federal employees. SSA’s earlier public statements had emphasized IT safeguards aimed at preventing private or commercial servers from integrating with agency systems — an assurance the filing implicitly modifies by acknowledging these communications.
Main Event
The Jan. 16, 2026 filing, first flagged in media reporting, amends the record by stating that two DOGE team members had been contacted by the advocacy group in March 2025. According to the filing, one employee executed a “Voter Data Agreement” in his capacity as an SSA employee and sent the signed document to the group on March 24, 2025. The filing characterizes the advocacy group’s purpose as seeking to “find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States,” language attributed to the group’s stated aims.
Emails reviewed by SSA, the filing says, suggest the advocacy group asked the DOGE members to help match SSA records to voter rolls the group had acquired. The agency adds a footnote that, despite those communications, it has not found evidence that SSA data were actually shared with the group. The filing also clarifies that SSA first learned about the Voter Data Agreement during an internal review in November 2025 unrelated to the case prompting the court filing.
In December 2025 SSA referred the matter to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for two potential Hatch Act violations by the employees involved. The DOJ filing further states there is no current evidence that other SSA employees were aware of the communications or the agreement. The identities of the employees and the advocacy group are redacted or omitted in the public filing.
Analysis & Implications
If SSA-held personally identifiable information had been accessed or transferred to an outside political group, the legal and administrative consequences could be significant. Privacy protections governing Social Security records are strict; unauthorized disclosure could trigger investigations under federal privacy statutes and internal disciplinary processes. The referral to the Office of Special Counsel signals that agency leadership views possible political activity by employees as a substantive Hatch Act concern that warrants external review.
Operationally, the episode raises questions about internal controls and the effectiveness of SSA’s IT safeguards. SSA publicly asserted measures to prevent private or commercial servers from integrating with its systems; the filing’s disclosure of these communications indicates gaps in oversight or in how staff interactions with outside groups are logged and escalated. For Congress and oversight bodies, the filing provides a factual basis to demand explanations about access logs, audit trails, and any data-handling carried out by DOGE team members.
Politically, the revelation feeds broader debates about the use of administrative data in election-related research and advocacy. Outside groups seeking to cross-reference government records with voter rolls have argued such matching helps detect anomalies, while critics warn that improper use risks privacy violations and the politicization of administrative systems. The lack of confirmed data transfer at the time of the filing limits conclusions, but the presence of an executed agreement between an SSA employee and an advocacy group will intensify scrutiny.
Comparison & Data
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 24, 2025 | Executed “Voter Data Agreement” sent to advocacy group (per DOJ filing) |
| November 2025 | SSA learns of the agreement during an unrelated internal review |
| December 2025 | SSA makes two Hatch Act referrals to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel |
| Jan. 16, 2026 | DOJ files a correction to the record disclosing the contacts |
The table summarizes the timeline disclosed in the filing. The chronology shows a gap between the March 2025 execution of the agreement and SSA’s discovery in November 2025; that interval is central to oversight questions about what steps, if any, were taken internally during those months and why the matter surfaced only during a later review.
Reactions & Quotes
Media outlets flagged the filing after it was added to the court record; the DOJ did not provide an immediate external comment when the filing was first reported. Agency filings and internal emails are the primary documentary sources available publicly at present.
“[A] political advocacy group contacted two members of SSA’s DOGE Team with a request to analyze state voter rolls that the advocacy group had acquired.”
DOJ court filing (Jan. 16, 2026)
This sentence from the filing encapsulates the advocacy group’s stated intent and the initial contact with DOGE team members. It is central to claims that outside political actors sought agency assistance in a politically sensitive review.
“SSA has not yet seen evidence that SSA data were shared with the advocacy group.”
DOJ court filing (footnote)
The filing’s footnote tempers the disclosure: while communications suggest a request to access data, the agency reported no confirmed transfers as of the filing date. That caveat shapes immediate legal and factual boundaries.
Unconfirmed
- Whether any SSA-held personally identifiable records were actually transferred to the advocacy group remains unconfirmed; SSA said it has not yet seen evidence of such sharing.
- The identities of the two DOGE team members and the advocacy group have not been publicly disclosed in the filing and remain unconfirmed.
Bottom Line
The DOJ’s Jan. 16, 2026 filing supplements prior agency statements by revealing that a DOGE team member signed a Voter Data Agreement with an advocacy group in March 2025 and that SSA only learned of the agreement in November 2025. While the agency has not confirmed that data were shared, the existence of the agreement and related communications prompted two Hatch Act referrals to the Office of Special Counsel in December 2025 and will likely drive further oversight and inquiries.
For investigators, oversight officials and the public, the key issues now are whether any data left SSA systems, who authorized or reviewed the contacts internally, and whether existing technical and administrative controls were adequate. Until those questions are answered by documentary evidence or independent review, conclusions should be cautious; the filing provides a concrete starting point for accountability but leaves several substantive questions unresolved.
Sources
- Talking Points Memo (news reporting of DOJ filing)
- U.S. Office of Special Counsel — Hatch Act overview (official government guidance)