The Social Security Administration (SSA) is now sharing details about in-person appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a move that is raising privacy concerns and prompting criticism from former agency officials. The directive, communicated verbally to staff at certain SSA offices, represents a shift towards increased collaboration between the SSA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE’s parent agency.
According to an SSA employee with direct knowledge of the policy, if ICE agents inquire about upcoming appointments, SSA staff are instructed to provide the date and time. While the majority of SSA interactions occur over the phone, in-person appointments are still necessary for specific situations, including those requiring sign language interpreters, changes to direct deposit information, and for non-citizens reviewing continued eligibility for benefits. Social Security numbers are issued to both US citizens and legally residing foreign nationals, and in some cases, a non-citizen family member may need to accompany a citizen child or dependent to an office visit.
This practice isn’t entirely new. Data sharing between the SSA and ICE has been occurring, to some extent, since at least the latter part of President Trump’s second term. In April of 2025, WIRED reported on the Trump administration’s efforts to pool sensitive data from various government agencies, including the SSA, DHS, and the Internal Revenue Service. A subsequent update in November revealed that the SSA had formalized these arrangements and updated a public notice to reflect the sharing of “citizenship and immigration information” with DHS.
The recent directive to share appointment details, however, is viewed as a significant escalation. Leland Dudek, former acting commissioner for the Social Security Administration, described the move as “highly unusual.” He emphasized that the SSA is intended to be a “safe space” for individuals, regardless of their immigration status. “If a person is due a benefit, SSA is there for them and no harm will come to them,” Dudek stated. He argues that cooperating with ICE in this manner “diminishes the value of what SSA is to the public. Why would the public trust SSA anymore?”
The SSA’s relationship with law enforcement isn’t unprecedented. The agency routinely collaborates on investigations related to fraud and identity theft, and has established data-sharing agreements with DHS. However, the sharing of appointment schedules appears to fall outside the scope of these existing agreements. Historically, arrests at SSA offices were rare and typically involved individuals who had threatened the agency or its staff, with a formal process involving office managers and DHS representatives. The current directive, according to Dudek, appears to circumvent this established protocol, lacking the necessary paperwork and multiple sign-offs.
This development occurs against a backdrop of broader concerns regarding data access and security within the federal government. The so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated during the Trump administration, previously attempted to curtail the SSA’s phone-based services, a move that faced significant public backlash and was ultimately reversed. More recently, in January , court documents revealed that DOGE employees improperly accessed and shared sensitive personal data, potentially used to support questionable fraud claims. The Trump administration has acknowledged that DOGE may have misused Social Security data, but has been unable to fully assess the extent of the data breach or its intended purpose.
a district judge in Massachusetts recently ruled against the IRS and SSA sharing taxpayer data with DHS or ICE, highlighting the legal challenges surrounding data sharing between these agencies. This ruling underscores the sensitivity surrounding the privacy of personal information and the limitations on government access to such data.
The SSA and DHS did not respond to requests for comment regarding the new directive. The implications of this policy remain to be seen, but it raises serious questions about the balance between national security concerns and the privacy rights of individuals seeking access to essential Social Security benefits. The potential chilling effect on vulnerable populations, particularly non-citizens, seeking assistance from the SSA is a significant concern, as is the erosion of public trust in the agency’s commitment to confidentiality.
