File a Police Report Against DOGE in Louisiana

Campaigns already underwayUpdated Oct. 2, 2026

Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C.
Sept. 29
Louisiana residents can copy letters asking police and the district attorney to investigate DOGE’s handling of Social Security data under La. R.S. 14:73.2 and La. R.S. 14:73.5.
Letters for Louisiana
These letters are activist material published by The Existentialist Republic. They are not legal advice, and The Existentialist Republic does not act as legal counsel for anyone who files. Each reader decides whether and when to file.
Louisiana elects a district attorney in each judicial district, and that office prosecutes crimes committed there. La. C.Cr.P. art. 62 gives the attorney general "authority to institute and prosecute, or to intervene in any proceeding, as he may deem necessary for the assertion or protection of the rights and interests of the state," and "supervision over all district attorneys in the state."
Already filed or written to one of these offices? Add your report so it counts, and come back with the reply when it arrives.
Write your two personal parts once
Every letter starts with your own opening and ends with your own closing, so no two letters arrive identical. The copy buttons switch on once both are filled in.
Your opening: where you live and why this matters to you, in one to three sentencesYour closing: the reply you want
If you are a federal employee or hold a security clearance, you can leave out the police report and send the other letters. Send them from a personal email account on your own time, and sign as a private resident without a job title.
Letter 1, optional: the police report
To the [police department or sheriff’s office]:
[Your opening: where you live and why this matters to you, in one to three sentences.]
I am reporting suspected offenses against intellectual property under La. R.S. 14:73.2. The Social Security Administration holds my personal information, including in the agency’s Numident file.
On Jan. 16, 2026, Justice Department lawyers filed a Notice of Corrections to the Record in AFSCME v. Social Security Administration, No. 1:25-cv-00596 (D. Md.), ECF 197. The Social Security Administration reported that the agency’s former Department of Government Efficiency team, known as DOGE, took actions “potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with” a March 20, 2025, court order. From March 7 to March 17, 2025, team members shared data through Cloudflare, a third-party server, and the agency has not been able to determine what was shared. On March 3, 2025, a team member emailed the Department of Homeland Security an encrypted file and copied a senior adviser to the U.S. DOGE Temporary Organization and a DOGE-affiliated Labor Department employee. The agency believes the file held personal information, including names and addresses, of about 1,000 people, and the agency has been unable to open it. A team member signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with a political group seeking “to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.” On March 24, 2025, four days after the court order, a team member searched personal data in the Numident, the agency’s master file of Social Security numbers. In an Aug. 26, 2025, whistleblower disclosure, Charles Borges, then the agency’s chief data officer, said DOGE staff copied the Numident, with records on more than 300 million Americans, to a cloud environment without independent oversight. In March 2026, the agency’s Office of the Inspector General notified congressional committee leaders of a review of “the potential misuse of SSA data by a former DOGE employee.” On April 10, 2026, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction for lack of irreparable harm without ruling on whether DOGE’s access was lawful. U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander ordered discovery, including depositions, on April 14, 2026, and on June 26, 2026, refused to withdraw the order, writing that the government “may have ‘provided patently false information to the district court.’”
Please take this report and forward it to the District Attorney.
[Your closing: the reply you want.]
Respectfully,
[Full name]
[Street address]
[City, state, ZIP]
[Email or phone]
Letter 2: the district attorney
Dear District Attorney [last name]:
[Your opening.]
I am asking your office to open a criminal investigation into the conduct described below. The Social Security Administration holds my personal information, including in the agency’s Numident file.
On Jan. 16, 2026, Justice Department lawyers filed a Notice of Corrections to the Record in AFSCME v. Social Security Administration, No. 1:25-cv-00596 (D. Md.), ECF 197. The Social Security Administration reported that the agency’s former Department of Government Efficiency team, known as DOGE, took actions “potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with” a March 20, 2025, court order. From March 7 to March 17, 2025, team members shared data through Cloudflare, a third-party server, and the agency has not been able to determine what was shared. On March 3, 2025, a team member emailed the Department of Homeland Security an encrypted file and copied a senior adviser to the U.S. DOGE Temporary Organization and a DOGE-affiliated Labor Department employee. The agency believes the file held personal information, including names and addresses, of about 1,000 people, and the agency has been unable to open it. A team member signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with a political group seeking “to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.” On March 24, 2025, four days after the court order, a team member searched personal data in the Numident, the agency’s master file of Social Security numbers. In an Aug. 26, 2025, whistleblower disclosure, Charles Borges, then the agency’s chief data officer, said DOGE staff copied the Numident, with records on more than 300 million Americans, to a cloud environment without independent oversight. In March 2026, the agency’s Office of the Inspector General notified congressional committee leaders of a review of “the potential misuse of SSA data by a former DOGE employee.” On April 10, 2026, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction for lack of irreparable harm without ruling on whether DOGE’s access was lawful. U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander ordered discovery, including depositions, on April 14, 2026, and on June 26, 2026, refused to withdraw the order, writing that the government “may have ‘provided patently false information to the district court.’”
As a Louisiana resident whose Social Security records are maintained by the Social Security Administration, I believe this conduct violates La. R.S. 14:73.2 and La. R.S. 14:73.5. An offense against intellectual property is the intentional "disclosure, use, copying, taking, or accessing, without consent, of intellectual property" (La. R.S. 14:73.2(A)(2)), and "intellectual property" includes "data" and "confidential or proprietary information, in any form or medium, when such is stored in, produced by, or intended for use or storage with or in a computer, a computer system, or a computer network" (14:73.1(10)). When the damage or loss is $500 or more, the offender "may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both" (14:73.2(B)(2)). Computer fraud is "the accessing or causing to be accessed of any computer, computer system, computer network, or any part thereof with the intent to" defraud (La. R.S. 14:73.5(A)), punishable by up to five years and a $10,000 fine (14:73.5(B)). Identity theft is "the intentional use, possession, transfer, or attempted use, with fraudulent intent, by any person of any personal identifying information of another person" to obtain "any thing else of value without the authorization or consent of the other person" (La. R.S. 14:67.16(B)).
In Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510 (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officers “are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law.” The immunity recognized in In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), covers acts federal law authorizes that were necessary and proper to the officer’s duty, and the agency has said this conduct was potentially outside agency policy. The plaintiffs in the civil lawsuits seek court orders, and criminal charges require a prosecutor. The president’s pardon power applies only to “Offences against the United States” (U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 2), and in Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678 (2019), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that each state prosecutes crimes under its own law as a separate sovereign. In April 2026, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minnesota charged a federal immigration officer with assault under state law.
I am asking you to use subpoenas to learn where Louisiana residents’ data went and who used it.
[If you filed a police report: I reported this to (agency) on (date), report number (number).]
[Your closing: the reply you want.]
Respectfully,
[Full name]
[Street address]
[City, state, ZIP]
[Email or phone]
Letter 3: the attorney general
Dear Attorney General [last name]:
[Your opening.]
I am asking your office to open a criminal investigation into the conduct described below. The Social Security Administration holds my personal information, including in the agency’s Numident file.
On Jan. 16, 2026, Justice Department lawyers filed a Notice of Corrections to the Record in AFSCME v. Social Security Administration, No. 1:25-cv-00596 (D. Md.), ECF 197. The Social Security Administration reported that the agency’s former Department of Government Efficiency team, known as DOGE, took actions “potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with” a March 20, 2025, court order. From March 7 to March 17, 2025, team members shared data through Cloudflare, a third-party server, and the agency has not been able to determine what was shared. On March 3, 2025, a team member emailed the Department of Homeland Security an encrypted file and copied a senior adviser to the U.S. DOGE Temporary Organization and a DOGE-affiliated Labor Department employee. The agency believes the file held personal information, including names and addresses, of about 1,000 people, and the agency has been unable to open it. A team member signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with a political group seeking “to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.” On March 24, 2025, four days after the court order, a team member searched personal data in the Numident, the agency’s master file of Social Security numbers. In an Aug. 26, 2025, whistleblower disclosure, Charles Borges, then the agency’s chief data officer, said DOGE staff copied the Numident, with records on more than 300 million Americans, to a cloud environment without independent oversight. In March 2026, the agency’s Office of the Inspector General notified congressional committee leaders of a review of “the potential misuse of SSA data by a former DOGE employee.” On April 10, 2026, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction for lack of irreparable harm without ruling on whether DOGE’s access was lawful. U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander ordered discovery, including depositions, on April 14, 2026, and on June 26, 2026, refused to withdraw the order, writing that the government “may have ‘provided patently false information to the district court.’”
As a Louisiana resident whose Social Security records are maintained by the Social Security Administration, I believe this conduct violates La. R.S. 14:73.2 and La. R.S. 14:73.5. An offense against intellectual property is the intentional "disclosure, use, copying, taking, or accessing, without consent, of intellectual property" (La. R.S. 14:73.2(A)(2)), and "intellectual property" includes "data" and "confidential or proprietary information, in any form or medium, when such is stored in, produced by, or intended for use or storage with or in a computer, a computer system, or a computer network" (14:73.1(10)). When the damage or loss is $500 or more, the offender "may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both" (14:73.2(B)(2)). Computer fraud is "the accessing or causing to be accessed of any computer, computer system, computer network, or any part thereof with the intent to" defraud (La. R.S. 14:73.5(A)), punishable by up to five years and a $10,000 fine (14:73.5(B)). Identity theft is "the intentional use, possession, transfer, or attempted use, with fraudulent intent, by any person of any personal identifying information of another person" to obtain "any thing else of value without the authorization or consent of the other person" (La. R.S. 14:67.16(B)).
In Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510 (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officers “are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law.” The immunity recognized in In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), covers acts federal law authorizes that were necessary and proper to the officer’s duty, and the agency has said this conduct was potentially outside agency policy. The plaintiffs in the civil lawsuits seek court orders, and criminal charges require a prosecutor. The president’s pardon power applies only to “Offences against the United States” (U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 2), and in Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678 (2019), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that each state prosecutes crimes under its own law as a separate sovereign. In April 2026, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minnesota charged a federal immigration officer with assault under state law.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 62 gives your office "authority to institute and prosecute, or to intervene in any proceeding, as he may deem necessary for the assertion or protection of the rights and interests of the state." I am asking you to use that authority.
[If you filed a police report: I reported this to (agency) on (date), report number (number).]
[Your closing: the reply you want.]
Respectfully,
[Full name]
[Street address]
[City, state, ZIP]
[Email or phone]
What officials in Louisiana said back
No reader reports are on record yet for this page.
Report a problem with these letters
Sources
Change log
- March 30, 2026, version 1: Readers in Louisiana used the general letters from the March 30, 2026, article. Original
- Sept. 29, 2026, version 2: Set rebuilt from the state’s own statutes, with every quotation checked against the official text or a published copy of the code.
- Sept. 29, 2026, version 3: Set re-led with the statute that reaches copying, taking or possessing the data rather than access alone, after a second review of the state code. Source
These letters are activist material published by The Existentialist Republic. They are not legal advice, and The Existentialist Republic does not act as legal counsel for anyone who files. Each reader decides whether and when to file.
All 50 states
ShareText Email Facebook Reddit

More campaigns

DOGE police report letters for Louisiana

Letters for Louisiana

Get the campaigns in your county