Washington, DC – A former chief of staff at the US Social Security Administration (SSA) has raised concerns about the presence of the “department of government efficiency” (Doge) agents within the agency, which is part of Elon Musk’s government cost-cutting initiative. The former chief of staff, Tiffany Flick, described the Doge agents as imposing and questioning senior staff members based on the “general myth of supposed widespread fraud”, showing a dangerous disregard for data confidentiality.
Flick, who served 30 years at the SSA, expressed her lack of confidence in the Doge agents’ ability to prevent sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands, as they had not been vetted or trained on SSA data, systems, or programs. These concerns come as Doge, led by Mike Russo and Akash Bobba, has been tasked with implementing budget cuts and staff changes at the agency.
The controversy surrounding Doge’s influence at the SSA intensified with the appointment of Leland Dudek as acting commissioner, a move that Flick described as undermining the agency’s autonomy. Dudek, a former mid-level SSA data analyst suspected of colluding with Doge, has reportedly voiced concerns about the decisions being made without his input.
Critics, including Democracy Forward, a group representing unions and retirees, have filed a lawsuit to challenge Doge’s actions, accusing the initiative of unlawfully seizing personal and confidential data from the SSA. Flick’s declaration highlights instances where Doge’s demands clashed with standard procedures, raising alarms about the handling of sensitive information.
Elon Musk’s involvement in the Doge project, following his significant donations to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers like Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Reed pushed back against Musk’s claims of social security fraud, emphasizing the program’s importance in supporting seniors and wage earners.
As the legal battle unfolds, advocates like Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward are calling for accountability and urging the court to block the Trump administration’s perceived overreach in accessing Americans’ private data. The outcome of the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for data privacy and government oversight.