
The bureaucrat and the billionaire: Inside DOGE's chaotic takeover of Social Security
'The number is 40%,' insisted Katie Miller, a top administration aide who was working closely with Musk, according to one of the people familiar with the April 1 call. President Donald Trump believed Musk, she said. 'Do not contradict the president.'
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Throughout the early months of this Trump presidency, Musk and his allies systematically built a false narrative of widespread fraud at the Social Security Administration based on misinterpreted data, using their claims to justify an aggressive effort to gain access to personal information on millions of Americans, a New York Times investigation has found.
Advertisement
Their work has led to the departures of thousands of employees, thinning an already overstretched workforce and setting off a wave of public anxiety over the state of an agency administering politically sacrosanct retirement benefits that Trump has vowed to protect.
Musk has left Washington amid a blowup with Trump, and some of his top aides at DOGE have also departed, leaving federal workers and the public to assess what Musk's tornadolike path through Washington yielded. At Social Security, Musk's efforts amount to a case study in what happened when his team of government novices ran a critical government agency through misinformation and social media blasts.
Advertisement
The Times' investigation found that Musk became fixated on the program in early February after members of his team misread government spending data — a pivotal and previously unreported moment that DOGE believed had exposed massive fraud inside the agency.
DOGE leaders pressured agency executives to hire Akash Bobba, a 21-year-old former intern at Palantir, a data analysis and technology firm, and grant him access to the personal data of every Social Security cardholder despite the executives' concerns that he lacked sufficient training to handle such sensitive information.
Musk's deputies became so intent on their work at Social Security that they pushed employees to continue giving them access to sensitive agency data even after a federal judge demanded that DOGE's access be cut off, according to two people familiar with the events. The Supreme Court ruled this month that DOGE's access can resume.
This account of DOGE's Social Security takeover is based on interviews with more than 70 current and former employees, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation, and a review of hundreds of pages of internal documents and court records.
Thrust into the center of the DOGE drama was Dudek, the acting Social Security commissioner for nearly three months. He told others that he aimed to comply with orders from DOGE and the White House while keeping Social Security from suffering what he saw as potentially disastrous consequences if the DOGE plans for slashing staff and changing policies were fully realized.
Advertisement
So far the agency's core functions — like sending monthly checks to 74 million Americans — have remained largely intact.
But under pressure from Musk's team, nearly half of the Social Security Administration's 140 senior executives, and thousands of employees overall, have taken buyouts or retired. As many as 12% of staff members, out of a bureaucracy that numbered around 57,000 people, are expected to depart their jobs as part of DOGE's cost-cutting plan.
To try to make up for the staffing shortfall, the agency has encouraged specialized professionals like lawyers, human resources staff and technologists to take reassignments in customer service jobs — often at higher pay than what the people they're replacing had made. Workers have said they felt pressured to volunteer for reassignments, or else risk being fired later.
At the same time, concern over DOGE-induced policy changes has caused members of the public to clog the agency's phone lines and crowd into field offices. More Americans have claimed their Social Security benefits earlier, agency data show, sacrificing higher payments down the road for financial certainty now. And with a record number of retirement claims filed this year, the agency has been battling a growing backlog, internal emails show.
Administration officials, in response to questions from the Times, vowed to protect and bolster Social Security. A White House spokesperson, Elizabeth Huston, said that under Trump the agency 'will continue to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse while protecting benefits for eligible Americans.'
Musk has cast his efforts to root out waste and fraud as a way to save Social Security, which he has called a 'Ponzi scheme.' Because of DOGE, he told Fox News, 'legitimate recipients of Social Security will receive more money.' Neither he nor Miller, who left the White House alongside him, responded to requests for comment.
Advertisement
The administration credits DOGE with identifying $1 billion in savings for this year, out of Social Security's operating budget of $14 billion, citing canceled contracts, payroll cuts and other measures. The White House did not provide a detailed accounting of that figure and the Times could not verify it.
Dudek was recently placed on administrative leave, and Social Security is now run by Frank Bisignano, a former Wall Street executive who was confirmed as commissioner on May 6. In an interview with the Times this month, Bisignano rejected the idea that DOGE was to blame for problems at Social Security.
But Bisignano acknowledged that the 40% figure cited by Musk was incorrect. 'We're going to be a fact-based, rule-based organization that can count,' Bisignano said.
In a statement later provided by the agency, Bisignano said: 'The work that DOGE did was 100% accurate.'
The Social Security agency did not respond to a request to interview Dudek for this article. On his last day as acting commissioner, he wrote in a New York Post opinion piece that he was proud of the work he and his colleagues had done in service of Trump's mandate to 'be bold, not bureaucratic.'
Still, Dudek, 48, has told associates that while he did his best to fend off deeper cuts, he harbors deep misgivings about the effect of DOGE's oversight, according to several people familiar with the conversations.
Advertisement
Initially, Musk's deputies showed little public interest in Social Security as they looked into other corners of the federal bureaucracy.
But in early February, a DOGE team stationed at the Treasury Department gained access to crucial federal data: the payments the Treasury processed on behalf of government agencies.
Inside that system, DOGE members saw taxpayer funds flowing to people who appeared not to have Social Security numbers, according to an internal memo viewed by the Times and people briefed on DOGE's analysis of the Treasury data. Other recipients seemed to be dead.
None of it was evidence of wrongdoing, Social Security employees would later explain to DOGE. Musk's team simply did not understand the data. But on the social platform X, Musk suddenly began accusing the agency of enabling 'massive fraud,' saying in a flurry of posts starting Feb. 9 that Social Security payments had been going to scammers and 'illegals.'
Musk's false claim about scammers making 40% of calls to Social Security's customer service line appeared to be a distortion of a statistic.
The DOGE leader was apparently referring to claims his deputies had been making about a far narrower subset of calls in which fraudsters were trying to steal money by changing bank account information. Agency analysts had estimated there were 66,000 such fraud cases a year, according to documents viewed by the Times. The customer service number receives roughly 80 million calls per year.
A recent agency memo found only 'minimal instances' of phone fraud.
Nonetheless, the Musk claim had been used to justify a policy change greenlit by Dudek: The public would no longer be allowed to file for benefits or change their bank account information over the phone, instead having to do so online or in person.
Advertisement
The proposed change, which was supposed to take effect on March 31, was met with resistance given the difficulties it was expected to impose on retirees and people with disabilities. Agency officials estimated it would have sent some 4 million customers to field offices that were already short-staffed, and confusion soon spread.
Lines at some locations snaked out the door. Among other concerns, many beneficiaries mistakenly believed they needed to prove their identity in person or risk losing their benefits.
Within weeks, the proposal was significantly scaled back.
But the number of people visiting field offices to change their banking information still rose sharply compared with the previous year, according to internal agency statistics reviewed by the Times.
The higher traffic was poorly timed. At least three dozen field offices were estimated to be losing more than a quarter of their staff, agency data show.
During one of his last weeks in charge, Dudek drove around the Midwest by himself visiting offices that had been hit especially hard by cuts.
At a Milwaukee field office, Dudek stopped a woman driving out of the parking lot, a moment witnessed by the Times.
'Were we able to take care of your needs today?' he asked.
'Not at all,' the woman replied.
Dudek apologized as she drove away.
This article originally appeared in
.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
18 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump's military parade was a 'beautiful celebration of America': Lara Trump
All times eastern Legends & Lies: The Real West Legends & Lies: The Real West Legends & Lies: The Real West Legends & Lies: The Real West FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: President Trump participates in G7 session with world leaders

Miami Herald
23 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Jean Chatzky sends strong message on 401(k), Social Security
As many Americans are aware, planning for retirement inevitably involves assessing several critical financial checkpoints regarding one's age to ensure long-term financial stability and to uphold one's desired lifestyle. Daily living expenses - including essentials such as food, utilities, phones and transportation - shape U.S. workers' budgets and influence how much they can save and invest. Evaluating Social Security benefits and reliance on personal savings, such as 401(k) plans, is equally crucial. Key challenges also include managing rising health care costs, countering inflation's impact on fixed income, and ensuring that one's assets are set to last throughout retirement. Jean Chatzky, former NBC "Today Show" financial editor and current AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) understands these concerns - and steps in to help Americans make some sense out of ways to maximize monthly Social Security paychecks and employee-sponsored 401(k) plans. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Chatzky advises people to carefully consider when to claim Social Security, cautioning that early withdrawals lead to reduced monthly benefits. For those expecting a long retirement, she emphasizes the advantages of waiting until age 70 to maximize Social Security payments. In the case of couples, she recommends that the higher-earning spouse delay distributions if one partner anticipates a longer lifespan, ensuring greater financial security. She also points to the benefits of working while receiving Social Security, noting that some people do so out of financial necessity, while others value the engagement and sense of purpose employment provides in retirement. Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary warns Americans on 401(k)s In addition to Social Security, Chatzky warns about the risks and rewards associated with retirement savings accounts such as 401(k) plans. She stresses the fact that Americans face a significant possibility of exhausting their funds during retirement. To address this concern, she offers strategies designed to improve financial longevity and reduce the likelihood of running out of money. Because Social Security monthly paychecks alone are not enough to provide retired people with enough income on which to live, it is of vital importance that, during their working years, Americans put money away in retirement savings accounts. Employer-sponsored 401(k) plans are a great place to start, especially if one's company matches employee contributions - as those funds are essentially free money. More on retirement: Jean Chatzky shares major statement about Social SecurityShark Tank's Kevin O'Leary has blunt words on 401(k) plansDave Ramsey strongly cautions U.S. workers on Social Security Chatzky emphasizes the benefits of automated 401(k) contributions and of gradually increasing the percentage with each pay raise to accelerate retirement savings. She advises that those new to saving and facing financial constraints start with 3% of their income, while individuals in a better financial position begin at a higher rate. Chatzky suggests raising contributions by 2% annually until reaching the maximum limit. Her goal is for people to save 10% yearly if they begin before their mid-thirties, including employer matches, or 15% if they start later. Chatzky explains her view that simply enrolling in a workplace retirement plan reduces the likelihood of depleting funds in retirement to 20%. Related: Jean Chatzky sends strong message to Americans on Social Security Chatzky emphasizes the point that saving money consistently is the key to freeing up more of one's income to contribute to a 401(k) plan. "When I hear people suggest that you 'live on what you make,' I always shake my head," Chatzky wrote in "Money Rules," her book on personal finance tips. "If you're living on what you make, you're spending every dime. The key is to live on less than you make," she added. "This is non-negotiable. Why? Because if you do it consistently, you're automatically saving consistently." Chatzky advises Americans to be proud of their step-by-step achievements in planning financially for their future. "With the same enthusiasm you brought to watching your lima bean plant take root in grade school - watch that stash start to grow," Chatzky wrote. "Take pride in it. You're accomplishing something very few people can. And that will inspire you to set aside more." The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.


The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Here's what's in the Senate GOP's version of Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
The Senate Finance Committee on Monday unveiled its portion of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' containing provisions on Medicaid, taxes and green energy tax credits. The committee's text is the final piece of the upper chamber's version of the bill to be released, and was the most highly anticipated. It contains some of the thorniest provisions that Senate GOP holdouts have expressed concerns about, and the issues that could set the upper chamber on a collision course with the House. The House narrowly passed its version of the legislation last month. Here's what's in the Senate's bill. The bill makes many of the core elements of their 2017 tax cuts permanent but scales back additional cuts from what the House passed. The Senate bill locks in existing federal tax brackets, boosts the standard deduction and maintains the termination of personal exemptions — all without sunsets. In contrast with the House version, the bill sets a lower increase for the child tax credit, raising it to $2,200 per child as opposed to the House's $2,500. The bill creates new deductions for taxes on tips, overtime pay and car loan interest — a priority of Trump's that he campaigned on — but doesn't make them fully deductible. Tips are deductible up to $25,000 through 2028. Overtime pay is deductible up to $12,500, or $25,000 for joint filers, through 2028. Auto loan interest is deductible up to $10,000, also through 2028. Senate Republicans are taking a bigger swing at Medicaid in their version of the bill. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Non-expansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. Limiting provider taxes is a long-held conservative goal, as they argue states are gaming the current system and driving up federal Medicaid spending. The policies are designed to inflate Medicaid spending on paper to allow states to receive more federal reimbursement dollars. The Senate bill also cuts certain existing state-directed payments to hospitals, which would be a significant hit to the hospitals' bottom line. The House version in contrast limited future payments but grandfathered existing arrangements. The change in the Senate bill is sure to anger Republicans who were already expressing concerns about the impact of the freeze in the House-passed version, including key holdouts like Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Provider taxes have become an important lifeline for hospitals, and rural hospitals would be hit hardest by the cuts. Hawley on Monday night signaled dissatisfaction with the newly unveiled text. Like the House bill, the Senate legislation imposes work requirements on Medicaid beneficiaries beginning at 19 years old. But the Senate version says adults with dependent children older than 14 will also have to prove they work, attend school or perform community service for 80 hours a month, while the House-passed version would exempt all adults with dependent children. The bill includes changes to green energy tax credits that are more flexible than those passed by the House — but would still be a significant rollback. The Senate text appears to eliminate the most stringent provision in the House bill, deleting a measure that would have required climate-friendly energy sources to start construction within 60 days of the bill's enactment to qualify for the credits at all. Instead, things such as solar panels and wind farms would need to begin construction this year in order to receive the full credit amount. Projects that begin construction in 2026 would get 60 percent of the credit, while projects that begin construction in 2027 would receive 20 percent. Projects constructed in 2028 or later would not be eligible for the credit. This, too, appears to be more flexible than the House text, which required projects to not just start construction but actually be producing electricity by the end of 2028 to qualify for the credit. Nevertheless, the Senate provisions are still a major rollback of the tax credits passed by Democrats in their 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Under that law, the credits would have lasted until either 2032 or when U.S. emissions from the electric sector are 25 percent lower than their 2022 levels, whichever came later. The Senate text also adds carve-outs for hydro, nuclear and geothermal power, allowing them to receive the full credit if they begin construction before 2034. The Senate bill as drafted would keep the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions at $10,000 a year, rolling back the deal that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) painstakingly cut with blue state Republicans to raise the limit on SALT deductions to $40,000 a year for households earning less than $500,000 annually. It would permanently extend the $10,000 cap, which is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters Monday afternoon that the $10,000 deduction cap is a 'marker' for talks with House Republicans, and that they will find a number in the middle that satisfies both camps. But the House's SALT Caucus Republicans are insisting on the $40,000 number. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), a key member of the group, wrote on the social platform X that the proposal was 'DEAD ON ARRIVAL' and warned in a statement that a $40,000 deduction cap 'is the deal and I will not accept a penny less.' The bill would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, instead of the $4 trillion increase adopted by House Republicans. The debt-ceiling language is a major problem for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has told his leadership he won't support the bill if it includes such a large extension of federal borrowing authority. Mychael Schnell and Al Weaver contributed.