File a Police Report Against DOGE in South Carolina

Campaigns already underwayUpdated Oct. 2, 2026

Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C.
Sept. 29
South Carolina residents can copy letters asking police and the solicitor to investigate DOGE’s handling of Social Security data under S.C. Code 16-16-20 and S.C. Code 16-13-510.
Letters for South Carolina
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.
South Carolina elects a solicitor in each judicial circuit, who prosecutes felonies in the circuit's counties. Article V, Section 24 of the South Carolina Constitution makes the attorney general "the chief prosecuting officer of the State with authority to supervise the prosecution of all criminal cases in courts of record."
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 computer crime under S.C. Code 16-16-20. 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 Solicitor.
[Your closing: the reply you want.]
Respectfully,
[Full name]
[Street address]
[City, state, ZIP]
[Email or phone]
Letter 2: the solicitor
Dear Solicitor [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 South Carolina resident whose Social Security records are maintained by the Social Security Administration, I believe this conduct violates S.C. Code 16-16-20 and S.C. Code 16-13-510. Computer crime in the second degree covers a person who "deprives the owner of possession of, or takes, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of any computer, data, computer property, or computer-related property, including all parts of a computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer services, or information associated with a computer, whether in a tangible or intangible form" (S.C. Code 16-16-20(3)(b)(ii)), a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year and a $10,000 fine for a first offense (16-16-20(3)(c)). The same section makes it unlawful to "wilfully, knowingly, maliciously, and without authorization or for an unauthorized purpose" access a computer "for the purpose of" "committing any other crime" (16-16-20(1)), a felony in the first degree with up to five years when the gain or loss exceeds $10,000 (16-16-20(2)). Financial identity fraud covers a person who, "without the authorization or permission of another individual, and with the intent of unlawfully" appropriating that person's financial resources, "devising a scheme or artifice to defraud" or obtaining money or property by false pretenses, "obtains or records identifying information which would assist in accessing the financial records of the other individual" (S.C. Code 16-13-510(B)), a felony. South Carolina sets no statute of limitations for crimes.
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 South Carolina 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 South Carolina resident whose Social Security records are maintained by the Social Security Administration, I believe this conduct violates S.C. Code 16-16-20 and S.C. Code 16-13-510. Computer crime in the second degree covers a person who "deprives the owner of possession of, or takes, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of any computer, data, computer property, or computer-related property, including all parts of a computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer services, or information associated with a computer, whether in a tangible or intangible form" (S.C. Code 16-16-20(3)(b)(ii)), a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year and a $10,000 fine for a first offense (16-16-20(3)(c)). The same section makes it unlawful to "wilfully, knowingly, maliciously, and without authorization or for an unauthorized purpose" access a computer "for the purpose of" "committing any other crime" (16-16-20(1)), a felony in the first degree with up to five years when the gain or loss exceeds $10,000 (16-16-20(2)). Financial identity fraud covers a person who, "without the authorization or permission of another individual, and with the intent of unlawfully" appropriating that person's financial resources, "devising a scheme or artifice to defraud" or obtaining money or property by false pretenses, "obtains or records identifying information which would assist in accessing the financial records of the other individual" (S.C. Code 16-13-510(B)), a felony. South Carolina sets no statute of limitations for crimes.
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.
Article V, Section 24 of the South Carolina Constitution makes your office "the chief prosecuting officer of the State with authority to supervise the prosecution of all criminal cases in courts of record." 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 South Carolina 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.
- 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 South Carolina

Letters for South Carolina

Get the campaigns in your county