After 11 weeks, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has hit a milestone in its major cleanup initiative to remove more than 12.3 million names of Social Security number holders whose dates of birth make them over 120 years old.
DOGE team members continue to deal with what they call “complex cases” that remain, including investigating instances where an individual has two or more different birth dates on file.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) touted the efforts of DOGE to root out fraud, calling the cleanup of Social Security rolls “remarkable.”
This is remarkable.
12.3 million people over the age of 120 are now finally marked deceased.
This will drastically reduce fraud.
Thank you @DOGE!! https://t.co/nF7Wxni9xI— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) May 23, 2025
Earlier this year, DOGE chief Elon Musk warned of millions of Social Security recipients well over the age of 100 who were still collecting benefits.
The number of potentially fraudulent Social Security number holders included some 7.2 million individuals who would be between 120 and 139 years old, another 4.8 million who would be between 140 and 159 years of age and a group of 124,000 individuals who would be more than 160 years old.
In March, the Social Security Administration (SSA) issued a statement saying:
“The data reported in the media represent people who do not have a date of death associated with their record. While these people may not be receiving benefits, it is important for the agency to maintain accurate and complete records.”
The SSA database, which tracks the numbers issued, has existed since 1936 and was flagged during a review in March of 2015 that discovered that the death records had not been updated for 6.5 million individuals over the age of 112, all of who were presumed to be deceased.
MSN reports that the agency automatically suspends payments for anyone recorded as being 115 years of age or older.
The Brookings Institute also reported that death records were not computerized until starting in 1962 and that the absence of a death date “doesn’t necessarily mean the person is still alive; it may simply mean the death was never reported.”
There has been considerable speculation that the outdated or fraudulent Social Security numbers have less to do with collecting illicit benefits and more to do with getting otherwise illegal individuals set up to vote in U.S. elections.
Either way, the confusion at the SSA is a solid example of what happens when government agencies run on autopilot for decades.
How anyone can, in good faith, claim this effort is anything other than a positive eludes me. Yes, I realize that the fact that these SSN numbers were still active does not mean they were necessarily still drawing a check but isn’t it the least bit disturbing that no one thought to asking any questions? I just went through the process of dealing with the estate of an older relative a few years ago & the impression I got at the time was that contacting SSN was an automatic event, triggered by the arrival of a body into the custody of either the coroner’s office or a funeral home.
If these recently active numbers were still drawing checks, shouldn’t everyone be outraged by the lackluster performance of this behemoth agency? They have been telling us for years that it is going broke – do you think that an absolute lack of curiosity about suspicious claims might play some small part in that?