File a Police Report Against DOGE in Maine

Campaigns already underwayUpdated Oct. 2, 2026

Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C.
Sept. 29
Maine residents can copy letters asking police and the district attorney to investigate DOGE’s handling of Social Security data under 17-A M.R.S. 433 and 17-A M.R.S. 432.
Letters for Maine
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.
Maine elects a district attorney in each prosecutorial district, who "shall attend all criminal terms held in the counties within the prosecutorial district" and "act for the State in all cases in which the State or county is an interested party" (30-A M.R.S. 283). 5 M.R.S. 199 lets the attorney general "act in place of or with the district attorneys, or any of them, in instituting and conducting prosecutions for crime," with "all the rights, powers and privileges of each and all of them."
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 aggravated criminal invasion of computer privacy under 17-A M.R.S. 433. 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.’”
The law enforcement agency for the victim's residence must make a police report and give the complainant a copy (10 M.R.S. 1350-B). 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 Maine resident whose Social Security records are maintained by the Social Security Administration, I believe this conduct violates 17-A M.R.S. 433 and 17-A M.R.S. 432. Aggravated criminal invasion of computer privacy covers a person who "intentionally makes an unauthorized copy of any computer program, computer software or computer information, knowing that the person is not authorized to do so" (17-A M.R.S. 433(1)(A)), a Class C crime. Criminal invasion of computer privacy covers a person who "intentionally accesses any computer resource knowing that the person is not authorized to do so" (17-A M.R.S. 432), a Class D crime. A prosecution for a Class C crime must begin within six years of the offense, and for a Class D crime within three years (17-A M.R.S. 8(2)).
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 Maine 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 Maine resident whose Social Security records are maintained by the Social Security Administration, I believe this conduct violates 17-A M.R.S. 433 and 17-A M.R.S. 432. Aggravated criminal invasion of computer privacy covers a person who "intentionally makes an unauthorized copy of any computer program, computer software or computer information, knowing that the person is not authorized to do so" (17-A M.R.S. 433(1)(A)), a Class C crime. Criminal invasion of computer privacy covers a person who "intentionally accesses any computer resource knowing that the person is not authorized to do so" (17-A M.R.S. 432), a Class D crime. A prosecution for a Class C crime must begin within six years of the offense, and for a Class D crime within three years (17-A M.R.S. 8(2)).
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.
5 M.R.S. 199 lets your office "act in place of or with the district attorneys, or any of them, in instituting and conducting prosecutions for crime." 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 Maine said back
No reader reports are on record yet for this page.
Report a problem with these letters
Sources
Change log
- Feb. 16, 2026, version 1: First set posted as a comment on the Feb. 16, 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.
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 Maine

Letters for Maine

Get the campaigns in your county