Massive Risk to Social Security Data from DOGE Action?

Aug 27

A report from the Associated Press, dated August 27, 2025, reveals that more than 300 million Americans would be at risk following the action of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an entity created under the Trump administration. Former Social Security Chief Data Officer, Charles Borges, denounced that sensitive data — such as medical histories, income, banking information, family ties, and other biographical records — were uploaded to a cloud without adequate supervision. This act could enable large-scale identity theft, loss of essential benefits, and force the government to reissue all Social Security Numbers at immense cost. AP News +6 AP News +6 The Daily Beast +6

Additional sources, such as the Washington Post and The Daily Beast, complement the account: a complete copy of the Social Security database was uploaded to a cloud without security protocols or audits, in open violation of legal mandates. Edward Coristine, alias “Big Balls,” a young engineer associated with DOGE, is also mentioned, with questionable access to the system. The Daily Beast +2 Wikipedia +2

Other publications such as MarketWatch and Time warn about the full scope of the exposed data (name, SSN, citizenship, family, race) and question the removal of standard protocols, dismantling key cybersecurity positions in federal agencies. MarketWatch TIME

Application of the Five Laws of Epistemic Integrity

1. Truthfulness of content
The information is based on a direct whistleblower who held a key position at SSA, supported by multiple high-prestige news outlets. The consistency among sources reinforces credibility.
Evaluation: High

2. Clear source referencing
AP, Washington Post, The Daily Beast, MarketWatch, Time, among others, are cited, allowing verification of each claim.
Evaluation: High

3. Reliability and accuracy
The report contains specific data (date of report, Borges’ role, type of data). However, the SSA continues to deny the existence of actual violations, which introduces a gray area in absolute reliability.
Evaluation: Moderate–High

4. Contextual judgment
The article situates the event within a larger campaign of centralization and reduction of the state apparatus, although it does not delve into broader legal or strategic implications.
Evaluation: Moderate

5. Traceability of inferences
The consequences (identity theft, interruption of benefits, mass replacement of SSNs) derive logically from the identified risk. However, the analysis of geopolitical impact or internal espionage is missing.
Evaluation: Moderate–High

Structured Opinion – BBIU Analysis

This case raises a challenge of structural governance framed within administrative efficiency. The DOGE initiative, presented as an anti-waste reform, introduces a redesign that modifies traditional safeguards around the United States’ most sensitive dataset. Even without evidence of external compromise, the decision to upload 300 million Social Security numbers into an unaudited cloud environment creates an institutional risk that requires careful evaluation in terms of both design and consequences.

From a pragmatic lens

• The SSA’s defense (“protected data, no evidence of compromise”) shifts attention away from the fact that vulnerability was introduced upstream, at the very moment of migration, regardless of whether or not an intrusion occurred.

• DOGE, under the Trump administration, operated with parallel authority over data, enabling it to bypass legacy oversight mechanisms. This aligns with a broader trend of executive centralization justified under the rhetoric of efficiency.

• The potential costs — mass SSN reissuance, interruptions to health and food benefits — extend beyond the financial sphere and touch on the symbolic foundations of U.S. state identity.

• Strategically, the episode illustrates the emergence of a new form of data governance in which efficiency arguments coexist with risks of concentration of control.

1. Legal and institutional frameworks affected

The transfer of SSA’s database to an unaudited cloud environment interacts with several federal frameworks:

• Privacy Act of 1974: requires that personal data be collected, used, and disclosed only under explicitly authorized purposes. Large-scale migration to the cloud without notice or consent appears contrary to the intent, and possibly the letter, of the law.

• FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act): mandates that agencies maintain NIST-based information security programs. Establishing a parallel environment outside SSA’s Information Security Officer oversight interrupts the compliance chain.

• OMB Circular A-130: requires all data transfers to be subject to approved access controls, auditing, and safeguards. The CIO’s unilateral decision to “assume the risk” does not align with the principle of shared responsibility.

• Federal Records Act: an unauthorized copy of official records could be interpreted as an alteration of public files, with additional implications if manipulation or deletion occurred.

In sum, this is less an administrative oversight than a case that exposes tensions between efficiency-driven innovation and adherence to established federal obligations.

2. Legality versus security

The Supreme Court authorized DOGE’s access to SSA data. However, the Court did not specify how that access should be carried out. This allowed DOGE to adopt a mass cloud upload as the most expedient method, creating a structural dilemma: legality does not necessarily equal security. The decision may have been legally valid, but institutionally vulnerable.

3. RAW data as a reference point

A complete, unprocessed copy (RAW) serves as the most reliable guarantee against manipulation or deletion later attributed to “technical error.” The existence of such a file preserves truth at a fixed point in time. From this perspective, DOGE’s decision could also be interpreted as an attempt to establish a mirror copy outside the reach of bureaucratic interests.

4. Preservation versus manipulation scenario

One plausible interpretation is that DOGE, aware of the possibility of internal alteration of records, sought to remove the data from the SSA perimeter in order to preserve its integrity. From this viewpoint, migration could be seen as a preventive measure. However, the paradox remains: while protecting against internal risks, it introduced the possibility of external or politically mediated risks.

5. Risk in governance, not infrastructure

If the environment chosen was a major provider (AWS, Google, Azure), the infrastructure itself is unlikely to be the weakest point, as these companies operate with security and compliance standards that exceed those of most federal agencies. The core risk lies in governance: who controls root privileges, who manages encryption keys, and who can authorize lateral access. In this sense, the institutional risk derives less from the cloud itself than from how it is governed.

6. Prospective scenarios

The case opens several possible trajectories:

• Institutional continuity: SSA maintains its position that no compromise occurred, DOGE distributes responsibility, and Congress avoids confrontation in an election year. Risks remain latent even if the issue is downplayed publicly.

• Political use and flooding: DOGE releases preliminary audit results, possibly highlighting inconsistencies, close to the elections. This would have immediate media impact but uncertain technical robustness, with potential long-term erosion of trust in Social Security.

• Formal institutional inquiry: Congress initiates an investigation with hearings and subpoenas. DOGE would be required to justify both the migration and its “business need,” potentially elevating the matter from a technical to a political domain.

The likelihood of each scenario depends less on technology than on political dynamics, making critical data governance an element of electoral and constitutional contestation.

7. Historical comparison

The DOGE–SSD case follows earlier episodes of data vulnerability:

• OPM Hack (2015): theft of 22 million federal personnel records, attributed to Chinese actors, demonstrated how a single compromised perimeter could endanger national security.

• Equifax Breach (2017): exposure of 147 million consumer records, including SSNs, revealed the fragility of private custodianship and led to regulatory reforms.

The key distinction lies in the origin: OPM and Equifax were external breaches or private-sector negligence. By contrast, the DOGE case stems from an internal, deliberate government decision that reconfigured existing protections. This sets a qualitatively different precedent in U.S. data governance.

Conclusion

The migration to the cloud cannot be understood as a simple technical incident. It represents a redefinition of the relationship between state, data, and civil identity. The rationale of efficiency conceals a deeper tension: whether the move was intended as a preventive measure to shield truth from internal manipulation, or as a mechanism for concentrating the power to define which version of truth ultimately prevails.