DOGE was introduced to modernize fraud detection efforts across federal agencies, including those targeting Social Security phone scams. The DOGE was referred to as the federal government’s cutting-edge fraud detection to avoid scams that affect the elder Americans. However, approximately 3 years into the program — and despite over $180 million budgeted, with 40% marked for tech investments — Social Security phone fraud has evolved, according to internal documents and reporting obtained by Nextgov/FCW.
A Problem Rooted in Trust
These Social Security phone scams involve callers who pose as representatives from the Social Security Administration (SSA). They then threated victims with legal action, suspended benefits, or even arrest unless immediate payments are made and they request untraceable payment methods like gift cards or cryptocurrency. These scammers general target seniors, immigrants or people who unfamiliar with government procedures.
In 2021, the year DOGE began full operations, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reported over 400,000 complaints of Social Security-related fraud, totalling more than $80 million in losses. Those numbers were supposed to drop with DOGE’s intervention. Instead, in 2024, complaints reached 470,000 and losses surpassed $100 million.
So, what went wrong?
The Illusion of Progress
DOGE’s initial plan involved an ambitious three-tier approach: real-time scam call detection using AI, a national public awareness campaign, and inter-agency coordination with the SSA, FBI, and telecom providers.
The DOGE initially noted that they reduced scam call volume by 35%, however upon further analysis, this figure only applied to robocalls from foreign scam centres not live calls originating from the U.S.
Their flagship program, SentinelCell, was designed to identify scam calls based on their voice pattern analysis but that too failed to deliver. It showed false positives and often flagged legitimate calls from the SSA. This program then quietly scaled down in 2023.
A Lack of Accountability
The DOGE was meant to transparent to the public. Over 40% of the $180 million budget was marked for “technology investment” but there were no specifics about this.
Meanwhile, scammers have become more sophisticated, using spoofed phone numbers that mimic the SSA’s caller ID, and even referencing real case numbers to gain trust. According to cybercrime analysts, much of this data may have come from breaches in third-party data brokers.
Victims Left in the Lurch
Perhaps most frustrating is the fact that despite DOGE’s promises, victims report a lack of follow-up and no access to restitution programs. A 74-year-old widow in Ohio lost $7,500 to a scammer claiming her Social Security number had been tied to a drug trafficking ring. “I called the number back and it really sounded like the government,” she said. “I reported it, but no one followed up. It was like shouting into the wind.”
No known reimbursements have been issued under DOGE’s victim restitution efforts to date. Many victims are left navigating a maze of bureaucracy, while scammers operate with virtual impunity.
What Needs to Change
Experts agree that the government needs a new strategy—one that goes beyond flashy tech and buzzwords. “Scam prevention isn’t just about algorithms,” says cybersecurity researcher Daniel Lin. “It’s about education, regulation, and accountability. Right now, DOGE is failing on all three fronts.”
To truly combat this threat, advocates say the government must work directly with telecom companies to enforce better call authentication, create more stringent penalties for data brokers, and invest in community-based outreach, particularly for vulnerable populations.
Until then, Social Security phone fraud will remain what it has always been—a low-risk, high-reward crime. And unless agencies like DOGE start producing real, transparent results, the public will be left wondering whether the watchdog is asleep at the wheel.
Apart from relying on the DOGE, beneficiaries must be mindful and weary of their incoming calls and be sure to not disclose any information if they aren’t sure.
Much of the information and the statements referenced in this article are based on reporting and internal documentation first obtained by Nextgov/FCW.