Recent reporting has raised new alarm about the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) handling of sensitive claimant information, particularly where agency data may be used for immigration enforcement or other non‑programmatic purposes.
In February, WIRED reported that SSA employees at some field offices were instructed to share information about upcoming in‑person appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if requested by ICE agents. According to the reporting, this information could include appointment dates and times for individuals scheduled to appear at SSA offices. The reporting relied on accounts from SSA employees and former officials, and described the instructions as having been communicated verbally rather than through public guidance or written policy.
Although SSA has not publicly acknowledged such a policy, the implications are significant. Advocates have long emphasized that SSA field offices (FOs) function as access points for essential benefits and services, including for U.S. citizen children and lawfully present noncitizens who may be accompanied by family members with more precarious immigration status. The prospect that appointment information could be used to facilitate ICE presence at SSA locations raises concerns about whether individuals may be deterred from accessing benefits or complying with agency requirements out of fear of enforcement activity.
Notably, the reported instructions, if accurate, would conflict with SSA’s existing policies, which are clear that FO staff are not independently authorized to disclose information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or ICE. Under the Privacy Act and SSA’s disclosure regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 401, any such request must be made in writing and routed to the Office of Privacy and Disclosure within SSA’s Office of General Counsel, not handled locally. See POMS GN 03313.001, 03313.095, 03312.080. Disclosure is permitted only in response to a valid, documented law‑enforcement request that meets strict criteria and that is processed at administrative levels higher than the FO.
The report is occurring in a broader landscape of expanded inter‑agency sharing that continues to draw increasing scrutiny. As discussed in the July 2025, October 2025, and January 2026 issues of Disability Law News, SSA has been engaged in expanded information‑sharing arrangements and the use of Systems of Records Notices (SORNs) to facilitate cross-agency sharing with systems including the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database – a system used by agencies to verify immigration status that now permits bulk queries of citizenship data for hundreds of millions of SSN holders – prompting concerns about secondary uses of program data for purposes such as immigration enforcement or voter eligibility verification. This use of SAVE is the subject of ongoing litigation.
Privacy concerns are further deepened by new details regarding the breach last year of SSA systems by affiliates of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Last month, the Washington Post reported that a new anonymous whistleblower has claimed that an ex-DOGE member told several co-workers that he had in his personal possession SSA’s entire Numident and Master Death File databases and “at least one thumb drive” for use at his new company, and that he retained “‘God-level’ security access to the agency’s systems.” A separate whistleblower complaint filed last year by SSA’s former chief data officer alleged that DOGE members had improperly uploaded sensitive data onto a digital cloud.
SSA’s inspector general is investigating the new whistleblower complaint and alerted four Congressional committees of the disclosure. Minority members of the House Oversight Committee and other Democrats, including Senator Ron Wyden, have called for briefings.
Despite this revelation, as well as an admission by SSA to the lower court in January about the improper sharing of data with a political advocacy group, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion on April 10, 2026 vacating the district court decision in American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration, 778 F. Supp.3d 685 (D.Md. Apr. 17, 2025) granting preliminary injunction, and limiting DOGE access. The Circuit decision was based on the record before the district court at the time it issued the preliminary injunction, and deferred to the Supreme Court’s prior stay of the injunction pending a disposition of the appeal. In a footnote, the opinion stated that although it considered the new disclosures to be “alarming” and “rais[ing] serious questions about the [SSA’s] earlier conduct before the district court,” it was for the district court to consider the new facts. More details about the case are in the April 2025 issue of this newsletter.
What does this mean for disability claimants? The expansive sharing of sensitive data risks is eroding public trust in the agency and in a claimant’s ability to safely access benefits and services. Advocates will be watching closely for further disclosures, guidance, or litigation that may shed light on the scope of these practices and their impact on the communities SSA exists to serve.
