What did the DOJ court filing correcting SSA testimony specifically include and where can the filing be read?
Executive summary
The Department of Justice on Jan. 16, 2026 filed a formal “Notice of Corrections to the Record” that amended sworn SSA testimony from last year, disclosing that DOGE team members at the Social Security Administration used unapproved third‑party servers, could not determine what data may have been shared or whether it still exists, and that two staffers were referred for possible Hatch Act violations after contact with an outside advocacy group; the corrections were lodged in the AFSCME v. SSA litigation in the U.S. District Court for Maryland and related appeals filings [1] [2] [3]. The filing itself is part of the federal court record for AFSCME v. SSA and has been reported and posted alongside coverage by outlets that first flagged the document, notably Politico and subsequent national reporting [4] [3].
1. What the filing said about data-sharing and unapproved servers
The DOJ filing corrected prior agency assurances by disclosing that DOGE team members used links to share SSA data through an unapproved third‑party server—identified in reporting as Cloudflare—which left SSA unable to determine exactly what information was transmitted or whether it still exists on that external server [3] [5]. The filing states SSA’s own review, based on records obtained in or after October 2025, revealed communications and use of data by DOGE personnel that were potentially outside agency policy and possibly noncompliant with a March 20, 2025 temporary restraining order [3] [6].
2. What the filing said about contacts with an advocacy group and the “Voter Data Agreement”
The corrected record recounts that, in March 2025 after a court order restricted DOGE’s access, an unnamed political advocacy group reached out to two DOGE employees asking them to analyze voter rolls the group had acquired, with the group’s stated purpose being to “find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain states.” The filing says one DOGE team member — acting in his capacity as an SSA employee — executed a “Voter Data Agreement” with that advocacy group and sent the executed agreement to the group on March 24, 2025 [4] [7] [8]. DOJ reporting notes it remains unclear from the record whether data was actually transferred to the outside group [8] [4].
3. Personnel referrals, alleged violations and other specifics the filing added
The corrections disclose that SSA referred the two DOGE employees to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for possible violations of the Hatch Act in late December 2025, and that the agency identified instances where DOGE members briefly retained access to restricted SSA profiles after court orders prohibited such access [3] [9]. The filing also notes a senior DOGE adviser was copied on an email containing a password‑protected file tied to roughly 1,000 people, though SSA could not confirm whether that file was accessed [9].
4. How the filing altered prior sworn testimony and why that matters
The DOJ described the document as corrections to sworn statements by senior SSA officials that had asserted revocation of DOGE access and the integrity of SSA safeguards; those earlier assertions were now shown to contain inaccuracies the agency says it did not know were false at the time the officials testified, with the inconsistencies revealed in an internal review completed last fall and communicated to DOJ on Dec. 10, 2025 [1] [3]. Reporters and plaintiffs framed the corrections as an about‑face that undercut earlier reassurances that external servers and off‑policy communications had not occurred [6] [7].
5. Where the filing can be read and how to obtain it
The corrections were filed in the AFSCME v. SSA litigation in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and in related appellate filings; coverage notes the filing date as Jan. 16, 2026 and identifies the document as a DOJ “Notice of Corrections to the Record” in that case [2] [3] [4]. The corrected filing is part of the public federal court record and can be accessed through the case docket (PACER or the district court’s electronic filing system) or via news organizations that first published and linked the filing — Politico and national outlets led on the reporting and republished key passages while the unions and plaintiffs also posted links in their court filings and press materials [4] [2]. If the exact PDF is required, the district court docket for AFSCME v. SSA (filed Jan. 16, 2026) is the authoritative source cited in reporting [2] [4].