Trump & Cronies’ Top 10 Corruption Scandals

(By Norman Eisen and Gabriel Lezra, The Contrarian, 7 Feb 2026)

 “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”  That famous line was at the center of the classic 1970s film Network – but it is also an apt motto for how my democracy litigation colleagues and I are responding to Donald Trump’s corruption in all its forms. According to the New York Times, there are over 600 cases defending the guardrails of democracy against his assault. We have 252 cases and matters at Democracy Defenders Fund and Democracy Defenders Action alone, with hundreds more by other organizations.

Building on those successes, the time has come to go on offense against corruption by Trump and his cronies. That’s why this week we at DDF, along with wonderful partners, filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s so-called “Gold Card” visa program. It is a blatantly illegal attempt to strip qualified immigrants of a path to citizenship while selling legal status to wealthy foreigners. Forget “give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.” Trump’s maxim is “give us your money, your oligarchs, your privileged few.”

Guess who made that lawsuit possible? You did, Contrarians! All profits from your paid subscriptions go to help support that and our other 251 cases and matters–like our huge win at the Supreme Court this week defending California’s Prop. 50 and counteracting Trump’s attempt to steal congressional seats. If you’re not a paid subscriber, please consider becoming one and joining the fight.

I cover the Gold Card case and nine other outrages in my updated top 10 list of Trump and his cronies’ worst corruption scandals – and of the pushback in the courts of law and of public opinion. There is nothing the American people hate more than corruption, and it has contributed to Trump’s historic unpopularity.

Since we published our first list in December, new schemes have emerged, and old ones have metastasized or featured shocking additional revelations of abusing power for personal or financial gain, corrupting the rule of law, and more. What follows is an updated list, reflecting both brand-new scandals and new developments in cases we flagged before. After you give the list a look, please keep on reading for our usual roundup of all our great Contrarian coverage this week.

1. The Epstein Files Cover-Up

The signature corruption scandal of the Trump administration remains Trump’s association with one of the most notorious child sex traffickers in history – and his administration’s refusal to turn over all of the files about the case so we can be certain we have all Trump-Epstein documents. The administration admitted it’s refusing to disclose about 3 million files, despite a law requiring their disclosure. The Department of Justice wants us to trust that it has good reasons for all that, but the place is run by two of his former defense lawyers, the FBI is helmed by an even bigger Trump loyalist, and they have acted like it too often for us to give them any credence. This scandal is not going away.

Current Status: Democracy Defenders Fund filed a complaint this week with the Office of the Inspector General about the missing documents, and we are litigating and investigating on multiple fronts. We will continue to pursue all legal avenues to ensure the complete release of all eligible files relating to the Epstein investigation, as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

2. Selling American Residency to the Super-Rich

In September, Trump debuted the so-called “Gold Card,” a program that lets wealthy foreigners effectively buy permanent U.S. residency for a $1 million payment to the federal government. That’s bad enough, but consider this: Rather than asking Congress to create a new visa category, Trump simply ordered federal agencies to treat these massive cash “gifts” to the Department of Commerce as proof of eligibility for elite EB-1 and EB-2 visas. Those are categories Congress reserved for Nobel laureates, pioneering scientists, and individuals whose work serves the national interest. But these employment-based visas are strictly capped – so every Gold Card handed to a millionaire donor necessarily displaces a qualified scientist, engineer, physician, or researcher already waiting in line. (It is worth noting that all available EB-1 visas were granted September 8, 2025, with the cap resetting every year on October 1.) That means that Trump has effectively transformed lawful permanent residency into a luxury commodity, letting oligarchs buy into our country like they buy Ferraris and Picassos.

We’re not letting Trump auction off our immigration system without a fight. This week, we brought suit on behalf of a group of highly accomplished professionals – people who followed the rules, only to find themselves subject to being pushed aside by wealthy applicants who could jump the line with a seven-figure check. And remember: Congress — not the president — has the exclusive authority to set immigration eligibility and raise federal funds. The Gold Card program overrides Congress’s choices — both as to who qualifies for employment-based immigration and how and under what conditions agencies may collect revenue.

Current Status: We will see Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in court (and in the Epstein files).

3. World Liberty Financial

Trump’s crypto company, World Liberty Financial (WLFI), was near the top of our list when we debuted it in December – and things have only gotten worse. New reporting last week revealed that the “Spy Sheikh,” Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed al Nahyan — the United Arab Emirates’ national security adviser and one of the most powerful men in the Gulf – had quietly amassed a secret stake in Trump’s crypto venture through a web of investment vehicles designed to obscure his involvement. His hidden investment in Trump’s crypto business created an extraordinary conflict of interest: a foreign national security advisor with direct financial ties to the sitting U.S. president’s private enterprise. And it may already be paying off, as, months later, the UAE secured a deal for millions of the most advanced computer chips from American company NVidia, a “coup” for the tiny nation. The White House has denied any impropriety here.

Current Status: WLFI is flush with Gulf cash – but these revelations may make Trump’s crypto conflicts so unpalatable that there are consequences. Perhaps even the crypto industry PAC’s $193 million midterms war chest won’t be enough to get uneasy Democrats to vote for legislation creating a market structure for cryptocurrency without any checks on Trump’s ability to influence the market to his benefit.

4. The Meme Coin Grift

Trump’s meme coin represents perhaps his most brash self-enrichment scheme, one unlike anything we have ever seen from an American president. According to the website, the token is “intended to function as an expression of support for, and engagement with, the ideals and beliefs embodied by the symbol “$TRUMP“ — and not as an investment or security. But of course this slice of code was listed on various crypto exchanges and immediately surged in price. Since its launch, the coin’s value closely followed Trump’s announcements, with wild fluctuations. The president even hosted an exclusive dinner for meme coin “investors” who spent tens of thousands to buy the digital token. This access auction was a scheme so brazen — even for Trump — that it left ethics experts like us stunned. The White House denies any conflicts of interest.

Current Status: The Trump-dominated Securities and Exchange Commission has shown zero interest in examining Trump’s meme coin activities. This makes defeating the new crypto market bill even more important. We have been sounding the alarm, and our fight continues.

5. Tom Homan’s $50,000

With Trump’s Border Czar Tom Homan back in the news as he took center stage in Minnesota’s ICE invasion, Democracy Defenders Fund this week expanded our investigation of his conduct. We launched additional FOIA requests about his alleged acceptance of a $50,000 payment from undercover federal agents posing as business executives. Homan has denied wrongdoing. But if Trump is going to thrust him into the country’s civil rights flashpoint, then we have to have transparency. A tape of the alleged payoff reportedly exists. Let’s see it. The secrecy surrounding these meetings raises the same fundamental question that follows so many Trump officials: Is government power being secretly shaped by those with money and access? The American people deserve to know what kind of person has taken control of immigration actions in Minnesota and whether he can be trusted to wield that power.

Current Status: If we don’t promptly get the materials we are asking for, we are prepared to pursue all legal remedies. If Trump and Co. don’t believe us, they should take a look at our 252 cases and matters.

6. The USD1 Binance-UAE Deal

Less than two months after Trump’s WLFI launched USD1, its stablecoin, a UAE state-backed investment firm announced that it would use USD1 to finance a $2 billion investment in crypto exchange Binance, which was then under SEC investigation. In May, Binance decided to list USD1 – and, days after the announcement, Trump’s SEC dropped its securities case against the exchange. And then there’s Trump’s treatment of Binance’s head Changpeng “CZ” Zhao. He pleaded guilty to money laundering in 2023 and got a Trump pardon this past October. The White House defended Zhao, criticized his prosecution, and blamed the Biden administration for creating a “war on cryptocurrency.“

Current Status: With last week’s latest revelations of the UAE’s crypto influence campaign with the “Spy Sheikh’s” role in WLFI (#3 above), it’s worth keeping an eye on this while we wait for the next shoe to fall.

7. Trump’s Qatari Boeing

In May, Qatar presented Trump and his administration with a $400 million Boeing 747, ostensibly to use as Air Force One — a present reportedly worth more than all foreign gifts bestowed on all former American presidents combined. As my colleagues and I noted in a legal complaint, the Trump administration is apparently illegally transferring nearly $1 billion from a nuclear weapons program at the Defense Department to retrofit the jet, a gross mismanagement of key federal funds. And it will barely have time in the air before Trump’s term ends and it gets “donated” to Trump’s presidential library for his continued use. Meanwhile, after the transfer, Qatar got a guarantee that the United States will defend Qatar through “diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military” measures and a new “military facility” for Qatar’s Air Force at the Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. Trump has defended the transfer of the plane as a legitimate “gift,” and the White House said that “any gift given by a foreign government is always accepted in full compliance with all applicable laws. President Trump’s administration is committed to full transparency.”

Current Status: We’re waiting for the Government Accountability Office to act on our complaint — but it’s hard to imagine a clearer conflict of interest.

8. Melania’s Amazin’ Flop

Amazon’s Melania film had its lavish Washington, D.C., premiere last week, and it went about as expected: a high-profile commercial event designed to elevate — and monetize — the Trump brand. Black carpets, media spectacle, and exclusive distribution through Amazon’s Prime Video platform were deployed to attempt to transform Melania Trump’s story into something in line with the $40 million Amazon paid for the rights. That was about $26 million above the nearest bidder, which raises questions about what Amazon was really paying for here. Unfortunately for Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Melania Trump, and director Brett Ratner (who was already having a bad day after surfacing in the Epstein files), the movie scored a putrid 6% on Rotten Tomatoes, with reviewers describing it as, “primarily a film about a woman walking into and out of rooms,” and an “unbelievable abomination of filmmaking.”

Current Status: Melania’s 6% rating leaves it in the rarified air of films like 1997’s Mortal Kombat Annihilation (4%), and 2010’s The Last Airbender (5%).

9. Trump’s Foreign Real Estate Boom

Trump is set to more than triple his foreign properties during this term, as real estate developers are working on at least 23 Trump-branded projects. These projects are a global feeding frenzy for foreign governments looking to curry favor with the president. To take only a few examples, Trump is building a hotel, golf course, and residences in Oman on property owned by the government. A Saudi real estate firm (with close ties to the Saudi government) is the Trump Organization’s partner in various real estate deals, including a new Trump Hotel in Dubai and a residential tower in Jeddah. In November, the Trump Organization announced a project in the Maldives with the same Saudi firm. The very next day, Trump met with Saudi Crown Prince and Jared Kushner buddy Mohammed bin Salman and announced an “Economic and Defense Partnership” with the kingdom. Hard to come up with better reasons why the Constitution prohibits the president from accepting foreign emoluments. When asked about possible conflicts of interest in the context of Trump’s then-upcoming trip to the Middle East, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that it was “ridiculous that anyone in this room would even suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit.”

Current Status: Each individual property may constitute an emoluments clause violation. We at Democracy Defenders Fund include leaders of the team that won multiple emoluments cases against Trump in his first term, and we ain’t playing. Watch this space!

10. Trump’s D.C. Renovation Racket

In the middle of the longest government shutdown ever, as federal workers were going without pay and standing in bread lines, Trump ordered the destruction of the historic East Wing to build a massive, $300 million-plus ballroom. And that’s only one of his Washington, D.C., personal vanity projects, which also include renaming the Kennedy Center after himself. When that caused artists and audiences to hemorrhage, Trump suddenly announced he planned to close the center for supposed renovations. We can’t help but wonder if it’s to avoid the additional embarrassment of no one showing up. Trump says he’s raised private money for both these renovations, but the ballroom donors include corporations that have received billions in federal contracts – and about a dozen facing federal enforcement actions.

Current Status: We and partners are litigating the Kennedy Center renaming on behalf of Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), with the government’s filing due on March 1. nd we are considering all legal steps to address the closing if it moves forward. Others are litigating the ballroom case, and initial signs point to a tough ruling for the White House.

I’ll periodically update this and my other Top 10 Trump trackers. So many scandals, so little time. 

Message To Ken Burns: What Lincoln Said About Our Founders On Slavery

           (By Lee Habeeb and Vince Benedetto, Dec 30, 2025)

It was 1860 and America was at an inflection point. It wasn't just slavery that was on trial: the Founding Fathers' vision itself was up for grabs. A growing segment of America’s population—mostly in the South—was convinced that the authors of the Constitution were fundamentally pro-slavery. It’s a claim, ironically, that’s been repeated ad nauseum about our founders for the past few decades in progressive academic circles, too, a claim that runs throughout the most recent documentary by Ken Burns, The American Revolution.

That's why it’s worth turning to Abraham Lincoln—a president universally admired by historians, Burns included. What did the Great Emancipator have to say about the matter when he was alive, and why did Burns and his team leave his most famous address on the subject out of the documentary?

In 1857, Lincoln tipped his hand on the subject of slavery and the founders' intention in his condemnation of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott ruling. Far from being hypocrites, Lincoln believed they were visionaries.  "They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them," Lincoln said. "In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit."

Then came Lincoln’s 1860 Cooper Union Address in New York City that propelled the little-known politician from Illinois to national prominence. It was less a speech than a defense of our founders on the subject of slavery and a constitutional argument for the use of federal power to restrict slavery in the territories. He deployed a tool he’d used many times before as one of America’s best trial lawyers: evidence.

Lincoln prepared for months, scouring Jonathan Elliot's The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution and official records of Congress, too. Like a detective, Lincoln followed the 39 founders' actions to determine whether they’d acted to limit or abolish slavery or to contribute to its preservation or expansion.

Lincoln began by transporting listeners to 1784. The issue at hand was land in possession of the federal government known as the Northwestern Territory. Four of the eventual signers of the Constitution were present, and three voted to prohibit slavery in the new territory.  In 1787, the issue reappeared. Two more of the 39 signers of our future Constitution were present, and both voted to prevent slavery in the Northwest Territory.

And in 1789, the very first federal Congress under the new Constitution renewed the Northwest Ordinance, setting rules and rights for the new territories. And again, banning slavery. Here is Lincoln once again.  "The bill went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage," he said. "In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution....George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and, as such approved and signed the bill."

By Lincoln's final calculations, 23 of the 39 signers of the Constitution had a voting record on the issue of slavery. Of the 23, 21—91 percent—voted to prohibit or limit its expansion. Of the remaining 16 signers with no record, Lincoln's research revealed strong anti-slavery sentiments.  "If we should look into their acts and declarations…, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did," he said. "Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times—as Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris—while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge of South Carolina."

Lincoln demonstrated beyond any doubt that our founders believed slavery was a moral wrong.  "Neither the word slave nor slavery is found in the Constitution, nor the word property even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or slavery," he wrote.  This was done intentionally, he noted, to "exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man."

Burns, an admirer of Lincoln, ignored Lincoln’s speech in The American Revolution and downplayed the history-making achievement of our founders when, in July of 1787, they outlawed slavery in territory that nearly doubled the size of America and would become the free states of Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Burns instead closed out his documentary with these words by historian Vincent Brown: “If we take the words of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson, all men–let’s say men and women–are created free and equal, Jefferson clearly didn’t take that seriously as a slave holder, but I do.”

One man who has written about Jefferson and the founders extensively is Dr. Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, who would surely disagree with Brown.  "The astounding thing is not that some of our founders were slaveholders. There was a lot of slavery back then, and for all recorded time,” Arnn noted in a speech a decade ago. “The astounding thing—the miracle even, one might say—is that these slaveholders founded a republic based on principles designed to abnegate slavery."

The Burns documentary, brilliant in many parts, also did a poor job of contextualizing slavery. Not mentioned was any note of the trans-Saharan slave trade from the seventh to 20th centuries, when between 10 million and 18 million Africans were sold and transported, or other countries that dominated the transatlantic slave trade (Brazil with nearly 6 million slaves traded, Britain 3.2 million, France 1.4 million, Spain 1.1 million, the Netherlands 550,000 and America 305,000).

"Very few Americans know that slavery was common throughout the world as well as in Africa," said Sandra Greene, professor of African history at Cornell and author of Slave Owners of West Africa. "Slavery in the United States ended in 1865, but in West Africa it was not legally ended until 1875, and then it stretched on unofficially until almost World War I."

While 11 million to 12 million people are estimated to have been exported as slaves from West Africa during the years of the slave trade, millions more were kept in Africa, according to Greene.  "It's not something that many West African countries talk about," she said. "It's not exactly a proud moment because everyone now realizes that slavery is not acceptable."

Burns also spent little to no time on the burgeoning abolition movement around the world.  "While slavery is as old as humanity, abolitionism is a relatively recent phenomenon," historian Katie Kelaidis wrote. "It's not difficult to trace the explosion of the worldwide abolition movement to the decade the Declaration of Independence was signed."

The study of American history should not whitewash the ills of slavery and must include the impact of segregation and racism in American life. Burns and his team did great work on both fronts and a terrific job including Black and Native American voices into the rich narrative of our nation. But misrepresenting our founders' intent on the subject of slavery–by design or omission—is not just a sign of bad scholarship and bad history, it’s an act of bad faith.

Lincoln’s own words make the definitive case of our founders' intent on the subject of slavery. Burns ignored it, but Lincoln’s Cooper Union Address lives on for all to see and read.

https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

Vince Benedetto is the founder and president of the Bold Gold Media Group. A graduate of the Air Force Academy, he is an avid historian and head of the Churchill Society of Pennsylvania.

 

Trump Vineyard Seeks Foreign Workers At Lower Wages After Trump Policy Shift

(By Zach Everson, Forbes, 18 January 2026)

 Weeks after the Trump administration lowered minimum wages for some temporary farmworkers, the Trump Organization sought approval to hire 36 foreign workers for its Virginia winery at a pay rate nearly $2 an hour below what it previously offered—highlighting the company’s continued reliance on overseas labor even as President Donald Trump argues Americans are being pushed out of jobs.

In October 2025, Trump’s Department of Labor enacted a rule changing how wages are calculated for some temporary foreign farmworkers on H-2A visas, lowering pay rates for certain jobs.  Two months later, the Trump Organization filed paperwork seeking approval to hire 36 foreign workers via H-2A visas for its Virginia winery from February through October 2026, saying it could not find enough U.S. workers and that hiring foreign labor would not hurt domestic wages or working conditions.

The jobs pay $13.90 an hour—$1.91 less than what the winery paid in 2025 and below what it has offered for similar roles since 2021, according to Labor Department records.  The Trump Organization has sought to bring at least 2,069 foreign workers into the United States since 2008, the first year for which records are available online.

Trump has largely avoided criticizing the use of foreign labor in agriculture, but his company’s continued reliance on temporary foreign workers contrasts with his political message that foreign workers displace Americans and suppress U.S. wages.

Spokespeople for the White House and the Trump Organization did not respond to inquiries.

The Trump Organization’s filing comes as Trump intensifies his second-term immigration crackdown, marked by stepped-up enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Trump administration has targeted the H-1B visas, which, unlike those his businesses use, target highly skilled workers in specialized fields such as engineering, accounting and the arts. In September, he imposed a $100,000 payment on many H-1B visa petitions.

Key Background

U.S. law allows companies to hire foreign workers through temporary visas when they can’t fill jobs with U.S. applicants. The Trump Organization has repeatedly made use of two such programs—H-2A for agricultural workers and H-2B for hospitality jobs at clubs like Mar-a-Lago. To use these programs, businesses must first get approval from the Labor Department and then petition the Department of Homeland Security, before the State Department issues visas abroad. Citizens of about 90 countries are eligible for these visas.

To obtain them, the would-be employer must “demonstrate that there are not enough U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work,” and that employing short-term foreign workers “will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers,” according to the Labor Department. The unemployment rate in Virginia in November 2025 was 3.5%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. To determine what the minimum wage rate for visa holders, the department calculates an “adverse effect wage rate” that varies by state or region.

In October, the Labor Department issued an interim final rule revising its methodology for determining the rate for some occupations, lowering the pay rates. The rule’s “interim final” status means it took effect immediately, although it still allows for public comments before formally going final. Comments were due by Dec. 1. It does not appear the Labor Department has announced a date for issuing its final rule.

Trump can earn income from his businesses while in office through the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, the same vehicle he used during his first term, according to financial disclosures and legal filings. He is its sole donor and beneficiary, while Donald Trump Jr. serves as the trustee. The Trump Organization confirmed in an April regulatory filing in the United Kingdom that Trump retains control over his businesses while in office.

Big Number

602: The total number of foreign workers the Trump Organization has sought to hire during Trump’s five years as president, according to Labor Department data.

Chief Critic

Some labor advocates and economists say the rule change would push wages down for both U.S. and foreign farmworkers. The Economic Policy Institute estimates the revised wage methodology could reduce total farmworker pay by about $3 billion a year—roughly 9% of aggregate wages. In November, the United Farm Workers and 18 individual farmworkers sued the Department of Labor, arguing the rule violates federal law by failing to prevent an “adverse effect” on U.S. workers’ wages and working conditions.

Contra

The Labor Department says the revised wage methodology would encourage employers to hire more workers legally, estimating the change could lead farmers to employ about 119,000 additional H-2A workers and generate roughly $200 million in annual economic benefits.

Tangent

Workers who Trump’s winery previously employed will be paid $16.16 an hour should they return in 2026, according to the Trump Organization’s request.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-vineyard-seeks-foreign-workers-at-lower-wages-after-trump-administration-policy-shift/ar-AA1U4hGS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=69666281eac1473e8922e5b5e3d4a714&ei=28

Trump Administration Says DOGE May Have Misused Social Security Data

 (By Gary Grumbach, NBC News, 21 January 2026)

 The Justice Department alerted a federal judge in Maryland that members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) working with the Social Security Administration (SSA) may have misused data obtained from the agency.

In a court filing Friday, Justice Department officials said SSA representatives told them a recent review found that in March, after a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking DOGE’s access to SSA data went into effect, an unnamed political advocacy group contacted two members of the agency's DOGE team “with a request to analyze state voter rolls that the advocacy group had acquired.” The advocacy group’s stated aim, the Justice Department writes, “was to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.”

The Justice Department said one of the two DOGE team members signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with the advocacy group. That person sent an executed agreement to the advocacy group on March 24 — four days after the temporary restraining order was issued.  “At this time, there is no evidence that SSA employees outside of the involved members of the DOGE Team were aware of the communications with the advocacy group. Nor were they aware of the 'Voter Data Agreement.'

This agreement was not reviewed or approved through the agency’s data exchange procedures,” the filing said.  The Justice Department said it was unclear whether any personal information was given to the political group.  The advocacy group’s stated aim, the Justice Department writes, “was to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.” 

The Justice Department said one of the two DOGE team members signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with the advocacy group. That person sent an executed agreement to the advocacy group on March 24 — four days after the temporary restraining order was issued.

“At this time, there is no evidence that SSA employees outside of the involved members of the DOGE Team were aware of the communications with the advocacy group. Nor were they aware of the 'Voter Data Agreement.' This agreement was not reviewed or approved through the agency’s data exchange procedures,” the filing said.  The Justice Department said it was unclear whether any personal information was given to the political group.

SSA representatives told the Justice Department they first learned about the situation during an unrelated review in November, the month DOGE ended its operations, and the Trump administration made two Hatch Act referrals to the Office of Special Counsel in late December.  U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland signed a temporary restraining order in March blocking DOGE from accessing “sensitive, confidential, and personally identifiable information.” The order came after a government employees union filed a lawsuit in February seeking to block billionaire Elon Musk’s DOGE from accessing Social Security, arguing it violated privacy laws.

"The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion," Hollander wrote.  "It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack,” while potentially putting millions of people's private information at risk, she added.

The Supreme Court in June reversed the restraining order and allowed members of DOGE to access Social Security data. The DOGE team argued last year that it had a need to access Social Security Administration records “to modernize technology” and “to maximize efficiency and productivity.”  A whistleblower report filed in August accused DOGE staffers of mishandling Social Security data by putting millions of people's data “in a cloud environment that circumvents oversight.”

In Friday's filing, the Justice Department acknowledged that some data was not handled properly.  "SSA has learned that, beginning March 7, 2025, and continuing until March 17 (approximately one week before the [temporary restraining order] was entered), members of SSA’s DOGE Team were using links to share data through the third-party server 'Cloudflare.' Cloudflare is not approved for storing SSA data and when used in this manner is outside SSA’s security protocols," the filing said.

"SSA did not know, until its recent review, that DOGE Team members were using Cloudflare during this period. Because Cloudflare is a third-party entity, SSA has not been able to determine exactly what data were shared to Cloudflare or whether the data still exist on the server," the Justice Department added.

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-administration-says-doge-may-have-misused-social-security-data/ar-AA1UCg1B?ocid=socialshare