People are Filing Local Police Reports Against DOGE.
Here's What Officials Said Back.
Ten subscribers per article. That’s what keeps this publication, this legislation, and this organizing community alive. It works out to around 20-30 cents per article. If this helps, help back. BuyMeACoffee.com/TheER
DOGE walked into the Social Security Administration and took the personal records of nearly every working American. Then they moved that data to an unauthorized server, sent a password-protected file of it to people outside the agency, signed an agreement to use it for partisan election operations, and kept reading it after a federal judge told them to stop. That seemed illegal. So I read the law. Turns out I was right. So I wrote an article about it.¹ Readers across the country used the templates shared in that article and filed formal criminal complaints with police departments, county prosecutors, attorneys general, and governors. The responses came back, and they tell a specific story about where the system worked and where officials chose not to do their jobs.
Police departments accepted the reports without resistance. Attorneys general were largely procedurally honest; many correctly explained their states' referral requirements, and Washington's AG office pointed to the civil litigation it had already filed against the administration. Those suits matter, but civil suits and criminal prosecution are different tools. One often takes months or years before possibly dolling out fines or remediation. The other puts the people who sold out our country in a cell. Our readers asked about the one they involves handcuffs not the one that involves cease and desist letters.
On January 16, 2026, the Department of Justice filed a Notice of Corrections to the Record in AFSCME v. Social Security Administration, admitting under oath that DOGE personnel transferred Social Security data to an unauthorized third-party server, sent an encrypted file containing the personal information of roughly 1,000 people to DOGE affiliates at other agencies, signed an agreement with a political group seeking to match SSA records against state voter rolls to overturn election results, and continued accessing that data after a federal judge ordered them to stop.² The SSA has since disclosed that it still cannot determine what data left the building or where it went.³ As of March 12, 2026, the SSA's inspector general is separately reviewing a whistleblower complaint about a former DOGE software engineer's potential misuse of that data.⁴ That account came from the government's own attorneys, filed under oath in federal court. Hand any private citizen the same access DOGE had and watch what happens when they transfer that data to an outside server, send a password-protected file of it to their friends, sign an agreement to use it for partisan political operations, and keep reading it after a judge tells them to stop. Every state in this country has statutes covering exactly that conduct. Those statutes say nothing about the defendant's job title.
A constituent in Jefferson County, Washington filed a formal criminal complaint about that conduct with Prosecutor James Kennedy. Kennedy wrote back. He told the constituent he could not refer the matter without a completed investigation, that the conduct was federal in scope rather than state, that he preferred not to get involved in political situations, and that the person should contact the attorney general instead. All three of these claims were demonstratably either false, misleading, or plainly wrong. The constituent had already contacted the attorney general. The AGs office had already told this constituent this required a The AG's office had already responded in writing, explaining that under Washington state law, the attorney general needs a written referral from a county prosecutor before the office can open a criminal investigation. The law was quoted to him and he still felt comfortable lying. Once a response was sent that again quoted the statutes, and quoted the AGs office, he tersely said he was forwarding the complaint.
In Kitsap County, Prosecutor Chad Enright told a constituent he was happy to forward the matter to the AG but that a referral "typically" requires a completed law enforcement investigation first, and directed the person to file a police report before he would act. Neither requirement appears in RCW 43.10.232, which conditions the AG's authority on a written request from the prosecuting attorney and nothing else. When the constituent pushed back with the statute, Enright forwarded the complaint without explanation. Across the responses we received, some offices claimed the complaints were too political to pursue; others claimed the people who filed lacked standing, despite the complaints quoting the exact statutory language defining who qualifies as a victim and where the crime is considered committed. Several told constituents this was the attorney general's job, which in Washington and a number of other states it is, once the county prosecutor sends the letter. Officials who received the correct statutory citation in the original complaint, misrepresented what the law requires, and when caught misrepresenting it, shuffled paper rather than answered. None of that is a close call or a good-faith disagreement about the law.
The standing objection collapses on contact with the statute. The SSA holds records on virtually every American who has ever worked a job, collected a benefit, or filed taxes. When DOGE moved that data to an unauthorized server, the people whose information sat in those systems became victims of that transfer. State identity theft statutes define the offense as committed where the victim resides because the harm follows the person whose data was taken, not the person who took it. Georgia's Supreme Court addressed this directly in State v. Mayze, 280 Ga. 5, 622 S.E.2d 836 (2005), holding that identity fraud occurs where the victim lives regardless of where the defendant physically accessed the records.⁵ Our data was in the breach. We have standing under the statute.
Qualified immunity does not reach criminal prosecution in any jurisdiction. This doctrine shields government officials from civil liability when they act within the scope of their lawful duties; it has never shielded anyone from criminal prosecution. It works exactly the way attorney-client privilege does: it protects legitimate professional conduct and dissolves the moment that conduct becomes a crime. A lawyer cannot invoke privilege to cover the meeting where they planned the fraud. A federal employee cannot invoke qualified immunity to cover unauthorized data transfers, agreements to use federal records for partisan election operations, or continued data access after a federal judge ordered it stopped.
The jurisdictional argument fares no better. Search any state's criminal code for the section that exempts enforcement when the person who committed the crime holds federal office. It does not exist. The entire architecture of dual sovereignty exists because states retained independent criminal jurisdiction so that federal power could not become a shield against accountability. A state conviction cannot be pardoned by the president. The framers built it that way intentionally.⁶
Most prosecuting attorney statutes use the word "shall" when describing the duty to act on information about a suspected felony. Washington's RCW 36.27.020(6) requires the prosecuting attorney to institute proceedings against persons "reasonably suspected of felonies when the prosecuting attorney has information that any such offense has been committed."⁷ Receiving information triggers the duty. Our complaints were that information. When an official receives documented evidence of a felony, acknowledges it appears credible, and then declines to act because of who committed it, they are violating a mandatory legal duty. When they put the words "too political" in their written response, they have documented the basis for a professional ethics complaint. ABA Model Rule 8.4(d), adopted in virtually every state, makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.⁸ Declining to enforce the law because the defendant is politically powerful, and saying so in writing, is exactly that conduct.
Some of these offices told us the documented theft of millions of Americans' personal data is too political to investigate. So let's take that seriously and ask what it actually means. Political how? That the people who did it work for a powerful man? That investigating them might cause friction with the current administration? Because if either of those things puts conduct beyond the reach of criminal law, we no longer have a justice system. We have a system that grinds through people without connections and stops at the door of people who have them.
We are building a database of every response received and we want yours. If your attorney general, county prosecutor, governor, or local law enforcement responded to your complaint, send it to us. DM it directly or drop it in the comments. Every non-responsive or insufficient office gets a direct contact from us first. We send them the original complaint their constituent filed, the response they gave, and one question: does the conduct documented in AFSCME v. SSA constitute a potential violation of state law, and if not, why not? What we know is already criminal. The government's own lawyers put it in writing. But the SSA cannot tell us what data left the building, who received it, or what was done with it. The DOJ and FBI, both now operating under political leadership with every incentive to bury this, are not going to find out for us. That is exactly what a state criminal investigation is for. Was the data sold? Was it handed to foreign actors? Was it used to build leverage over political targets?
If you haven't filed yet, we have created four pre-written complaint letters tailored to each official are pinned in the comments below. Find your officials at usa.gov/elected-officials. This is an ongoing project. You can also click on this sentence and find the original article that resulted in over 1,000 criminal complaints against DOGE nationwide. That articles comment section involves letters tailored to all 50 states to include the specific criminal statutes that DOGE violated.
Nobody who took an oath to uphold state law swore to protect people who took our Social Security numbers, our bank account numbers, our medical histories, and our immigration records and handed them to strangers in a password-protected file. The government's own lawyers confirmed that happened. Now it's our job to get them to do their job, or resign so someone else can do their job for them.
Ten subscribers per article keeps this alive. We hit that number the last two days in a row for the first time in weeks! That makes 2/30 days to keep this all moving. Twenty to forty free articles a month, model legislation going directly to legislators and activists, a thriving Discord of nearly 1,000 activists, three books and a dozen booklets all given away free. Two to three million monthly readers. Ten subscribers per article funds all of it.
Don’t let this be the reason you miss rent or skip a meal.
For the rest, you can be one of the 10 today and ensure the articles, books, legislation, and training continue for everyone.
BuyMeACoffee.com/TheER for free downloadable copies of everything.
TheExistentialistRepublic.com for physical products and books.
Works Cited
American Bar Association. (2023). Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 8.4 Misconduct. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_4_misconduct/
Armitage, C. (2026, February 16). Democrats can launch criminal investigations into DOGE, today. The Existentialist Republic. https://cmarmitage.substack.com/p/democrats-can-launch-criminal-investigations
Bichell, R. E., & Greenfieldboyce, N. (2026, March 12). The government is investigating new claims that DOGE misused Social Security data. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/12/nx-s1-5745153/doge-social-security-data-whistleblower-investigation
Fowler, S., & Jarenwattananon, P. (2026, January 23). The Trump administration admits even more ways DOGE accessed sensitive personal data. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2026/01/23/nx-s1-5684185/doge-data-social-security-privacy
Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678 (2019).
Notice of corrections to the record, AFSCME v. Social Security Administration, No. 1:25-cv-00596-ELH (D. Md. Jan. 16, 2026).
State v. Mayze, 280 Ga. 5, 622 S.E.2d 836 (2005).
Washington State Legislature. (2024). RCW 36.27.020: Duties. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.27.020
To Attorney General [Name]:
I am writing to request that your office investigate and prosecute criminal violations of state law arising from DOGE personnel's unauthorized access to Social Security Administration records containing the personal information of residents of this state.
On January 16, 2026, the federal government's own attorneys filed a correction in AFSCME v. Social Security Administration, Case No. 1:25-cv-00596, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, acknowledging that DOGE employees transferred Social Security Administration data to an unauthorized outside server, sent a file containing the private records of roughly 1,000 people to outside affiliates, signed an agreement with a political group seeking to use that data to challenge election results, and continued accessing the data after a federal judge ordered them to stop. The SSA has confirmed it cannot determine what data left its systems or where it went.
This conduct violates state criminal law. My personal data was in those systems. There is no exemption in your state's criminal code for defendants who work for the federal government. A state criminal conviction cannot be pardoned by the president.
If your office has independent authority to investigate, I am asking you to use it. If your office requires a referral from a county prosecutor or governor, I am asking you to confirm that in writing so I can make that request directly.
Respectfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Phone or Email]
To Governor [Name]:
I am writing to request that you refer a matter to your state attorney general for criminal investigation, using your executive authority to direct the AG to act.
On January 16, 2026, the federal government's own attorneys filed a correction in AFSCME v. Social Security Administration, Case No. 1:25-cv-00596, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, acknowledging that DOGE employees transferred Social Security Administration data to an unauthorized outside server, sent a file containing the private records of roughly 1,000 people to outside affiliates, signed an agreement with a political group seeking to use that data to challenge election results, and continued accessing the data after a federal judge ordered them to stop. The SSA has confirmed it cannot determine what data left its systems or where it went.
This conduct violates state criminal law. My personal data was in those systems. There is no exemption in your state's criminal code for defendants who work for the federal government. A state criminal conviction cannot be pardoned by the president.
Many state attorneys general have confirmed they need either a county prosecutor referral or a gubernatorial referral before they can open a criminal investigation. You have the authority to make that referral. I am asking you to use it.
Respectfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Phone or Email]