File a Police Report Against DOGE in Missouri

Campaigns already underwayUpdated Oct. 2, 2026

Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C.
Sept. 29
Missouri residents can copy letters asking police and the prosecuting attorney to investigate DOGE’s handling of Social Security data under RSMo 570.223 and RSMo 569.095.
Letters for Missouri
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.
Missouri elects a prosecuting attorney in each county (and a circuit attorney in St. Louis City), who "shall commence and prosecute all civil and criminal actions in the prosecuting attorney's county in which the county or state is concerned" (RSMo 56.060). RSMo 27.030 provides that "when directed by the governor, the attorney general, or one of his assistants, shall aid any prosecuting or circuit attorney in the discharge of their respective duties in the trial courts and in examinations before grand juries."
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 identity theft under RSMo 570.223. 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 [County] Prosecuting Attorney.
[Your closing: the reply you want.]
Respectfully,
[Full name]
[Street address]
[City, state, ZIP]
[Email or phone]
Letter 2: the prosecuting attorney
Dear Prosecuting 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 Missouri resident whose Social Security records are maintained by the Social Security Administration, I believe this conduct violates RSMo 570.223 and RSMo 569.095. Identity theft covers a person who "knowingly and with the intent to deceive or defraud obtains, possesses, transfers, uses, or attempts to obtain, transfer or use, one or more means of identification not lawfully issued for his or her use" (RSMo 570.223), a class E felony or higher when the theft results in the appropriation of credit, money, goods, services or property. Tampering with computer data covers a person who "knowingly and without authorization" discloses or takes data, programs or supporting documentation from a computer system (RSMo 569.095(1)(3)), a class E felony when committed "for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain any property, the value of which is seven hundred fifty dollars or more." A felony prosecution must begin within three years (RSMo 556.036), and RSMo 541.033 lets an identity theft prosecution be brought in the county where the victim resides.
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 Missouri 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 Missouri resident whose Social Security records are maintained by the Social Security Administration, I believe this conduct violates RSMo 570.223 and RSMo 569.095. Identity theft covers a person who "knowingly and with the intent to deceive or defraud obtains, possesses, transfers, uses, or attempts to obtain, transfer or use, one or more means of identification not lawfully issued for his or her use" (RSMo 570.223), a class E felony or higher when the theft results in the appropriation of credit, money, goods, services or property. Tampering with computer data covers a person who "knowingly and without authorization" discloses or takes data, programs or supporting documentation from a computer system (RSMo 569.095(1)(3)), a class E felony when committed "for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain any property, the value of which is seven hundred fifty dollars or more." A felony prosecution must begin within three years (RSMo 556.036), and RSMo 541.033 lets an identity theft prosecution be brought in the county where the victim resides.
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.
RSMo 27.030 directs your office, when directed by the governor, to "aid any prosecuting or circuit attorney in the discharge of their respective duties in the trial courts and in examinations before grand juries." I am asking you to act on any direction the governor sends, and to tell me which request your office needs.
[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 4: the governor
Dear Governor [last name]:
[Your opening.]
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.’”
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.
Under RSMo 27.030, the attorney general aids a prosecuting attorney when directed by the governor. I am asking you to direct the attorney general to aid the prosecuting attorney with a criminal investigation into this conduct.
[Your closing: the reply you want.]
Respectfully,
[Full name]
[Street address]
[City, state, ZIP]
[Email or phone]
What officials in Missouri said back
No reader reports are on record yet for this page.
Report a problem with these letters
Sources
Change log
- Feb. 17, 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 Missouri

Letters for Missouri

Get the campaigns in your county