Muslim World Report

DOGE's Risky Overhaul of SSA Codebase Poses Serious Threats

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 29, 2025 9:37 AM | 8 min read | 1582 words

TL;DR: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is rapidly overhauling the Social Security Administration’s codebase under a tight timeline, sparking concerns about the potential disruption of benefits for millions of Americans. This shift raises questions regarding accountability, oversight, and the ethical implications of prioritizing technological solutions over nuanced understandings of public welfare.

The Situation

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an initiative spearheaded by Elon Musk, is embarking on a perilous overhaul of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) legacy systems. This ambitious project aims to transition from decades-old COBOL code to modern programming languages such as Java within an unprecedentedly tight timeframe of just a few months. Such a rapid transition has raised alarms among experts, stakeholders, and the millions of American citizens who rely on Social Security benefits.

The COBOL code that undergirds the SSA’s operations has been in place for over five decades. Many experts caution that the complexities of this legacy system do not lend themselves to hasty modifications (Lindgren et al., 2019; Pina Martínez et al., 2010).

Implications of the Transition

The implications of this transition are profound:

  • The SSA provides critical financial support to over 70 million Americans, including seniors, disabled individuals, and survivors of deceased workers.
  • Timely and accurate benefits are essential for these populations’ living expenses.
  • The potential for disruptions in payments poses a serious threat to their financial stability (Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2007).

Critics emphasize that the absence of thorough congressional oversight and proper funding allocation for such a monumental operation raises fundamental questions about the accountability and competence of the team responsible for executing these sweeping changes.

As the U.S. government grapples with pressing issues—from economic inequality to inadequate healthcare access—the decision to prioritize a tech-driven overhaul over more measured, incremental improvements epitomizes a trend toward neoliberal governance. This approach often prioritizes market solutions for public welfare at the expense of the nuanced realities of public sector operations and the human impact of systemic failures (Crawford, 1977; Weis, 2008).

The underlying assumption that technology alone can rectify systemic issues is not only simplistic but also dangerously dismissive of the intricacies involved in public service delivery. Consequently, it is imperative to scrutinize DOGE’s approach, not only for the immediate risks it poses but also for its broader implications on governance and policy formation.

Broader Ramifications

Furthermore, the ramifications of this transition extend beyond immediate operational concerns. The shift in how the SSA operates may reshape the broader landscape of public service delivery in the United States. Key considerations include:

  • Influence of technological capabilities on the management of public welfare systems.
  • A potential neglect of a comprehensive understanding of social needs and community dynamics.

As ongoing discussions surrounding accountability, transparency, and ethical governance escalate, all stakeholders—including citizens, policymakers, and advocacy groups—must engage in a robust conversation about the potential outcomes of this significant transition.

What if the Transition is Successful?

Should the transition from COBOL to modern programming languages be executed successfully, it could:

  • Provide a model for future technological migrations within government agencies.
  • Enhance the SSA’s capacity to manage data, streamline operations, and improve service delivery (Dena Handayani et al., 2020).

However, this success would also raise ethical questions regarding the speed at which such transitions are undertaken. If the concerns surrounding oversight and stakeholder engagement remain unaddressed, a successful transition could:

  • Contribute to a renewed public trust in technology-driven solutions for social welfare systems.
  • Highlight the need for rigorous evaluation of technology providers, ensuring that expediency does not overshadow thoroughness.

Moreover, a successful transition could incentivize private companies to pursue further partnerships with government entities, potentially blurring the lines between public service and commercial interests. This scenario warrants careful consideration, as it could foster an environment where profit motives overshadow the public good.

What if the Transition Fails?

Conversely, a failure in this transition carries dire implications for the millions of Americans who depend on Social Security benefits. Key ramifications of an unsuccessful migration include:

  • Significant payment disruptions, impacting those who rely heavily on timely disbursements (Batson, 1976; Chong & Druckman, 2007).
  • Exacerbation of existing inequalities and increased poverty rates among vulnerable populations.
  • Heightened issues like homelessness and food insecurity, further straining public services.

A failed transition could also provoke considerable public backlash against the government’s capacity to manage essential services, undermining trust in an already beleaguered system. The political ramifications may include calls for stringent regulations on technology migrations and enhanced oversight of government contracts (Brown et al., 2005; Justice et al., 2006). In light of negative outcomes, policymakers may become more risk-averse regarding future technological initiatives.

What if the Public Demands Accountability?

If public outcry regarding the risks associated with the transition emerges, it could catalyze a renewed call for accountability within government operations. This could lead to:

  • Congressional hearings investigating the motivations behind the DOGE initiative.
  • Broader legislative efforts aimed at reforming government technology contracts to prioritize public interests over corporate profit motives.

An advocacy movement focused on accountability could galvanize civic engagement and foster a more informed electorate. Citizens might demand that their interests are prioritized in government contracts, leading to a more collaborative approach that includes stakeholder input at multiple levels (Carter & Bélanger, 2005; Lang, 1974).

Role of Advocacy

It is crucial to recognize the role of advocacy groups, civil society, and the media in shaping the narrative surrounding the DOGE initiative. By amplifying concerns and gathering public support, these entities can influence the conversation around governance, public welfare, and technology integration.

Strategic Maneuvers

Given the challenges associated with the SSA overhaul, all stakeholders—including DOGE, Congress, and the public—must engage in strategic maneuvers to ensure a balanced and equitable approach to governance. For DOGE, prioritizing transparency and accountability is imperative:

  • Public disclosure of project milestones, challenges, and strategies.
  • Engaging independent third-party experts to assess the viability of the transition, alleviating public fears while ensuring the security of sensitive financial data (Weicker, 1984).

The strategic importance of transparency cannot be overstated. Establishing clear communication channels is vital for:

  • Reporting progress.
  • Receiving feedback from affected communities.

Congress must take an active role in the dialogue surrounding this initiative, advocating for formal hearings to scrutinize the project’s framework. This proactive stance in oversight could serve as a bulwark against the privatization trends that frequently accompany technological advancements in public service (Huw et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2022).

The public also has a crucial role in shaping the narrative surrounding the DOGE initiative. Stakeholders must mobilize to demand transparency, leveraging social media and community organizations to raise awareness. Encouraging individuals to secure their Social Security statements, as experts recommend, is a vital step in safeguarding personal interests amidst this uncertain transition (Nessler & Davis, 2012).

The role of community organizations and local advocacy groups is essential in this context. By facilitating dialogue and providing platforms for discussion, they can help ensure that marginalized voices are included in governance conversations.

This moment serves as a litmus test for democracy, accountability, and public welfare amidst the rising tide of technological influence. Through collaboration and vigilance, stakeholders can navigate the complexities of government efficiency and technological integration while prioritizing the well-being of society’s most vulnerable members.

References

  • Batson, A. P. (1976). Program Behavior at the Symbolic Level. Computer, 9(3), 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1109/c-m.1976.218436
  • Brown, R. R., Keath, N., & Wong, T. (2009). Urban water management in cities: historical, current and future regimes. Water Science & Technology, 59(3), 517-525. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.029
  • Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e‐government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(3), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x
  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
  • Dena Handayani, I., Yudianto, I., & Nur Afiah, N. (2020). The Influence of Internal Control System, Information Technology Utilization, and Organizational Commitment on Government Accountability Performance. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Business, 3(2), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.24198/jaab.v3i2.26120
  • Eliana, I. N. A., Intan Novia Astuti, F., Ivana, F., Suryafatma, V., & Juned, V. (2023). The Influence of the Use of Information Technology and Public Accountability on the Quality of Financial Reports in Government Organizations. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(11), 161-172. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i11.1866
  • Huw, R., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., Wang, V., Floridi, L. (2020). COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education, 80(6), 1067-1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00561-y
  • Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S., & Melin, U. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002
  • Nessler, N. C., & Davis, G. F. (2012). Stock Ownership, Political Beliefs, and Party Identification from the “Ownership Society” to the Financial Meltdown. Accounting Economics and Law - A Convivium, 2(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1515/2152-2820.1035
  • Papazoglou, M. P., & van den Heuvel, W. J. (2007). Service oriented architectures: approaches, technologies and research issues. The VLDB Journal, 16(3), 417-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-007-0044-3
  • Pina Martínez, V., Torres, L., & Royo, S. (2010). Is E-Government Promoting Convergence Towards More Accountable Local Governments?. International Public Management Journal, 13(4), 422-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2010.524834
  • Schricker, D. (2000). Cobol for the next millennium. IEEE Software, 17(3), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.841606
  • Stiglitz, J. E. (2009). The three trillion dollar war: the true cost of the Iraq conflict. Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-4569
  • Welch, E. W., & Wong, W. (2001). Global Information Technology Pressure and Government Accountability: The Mediating Effect of Domestic Context on Website Openness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(1), 217-237. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003513
  • Weis, T. (2008). The Global Food Economy – The battle for the future of farming. Review of African Political Economy, 35(116), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056240802574318
← Prev Next →