In the filing, Justice Department lawyers representing the Social Security Administration wrote that two SSA DOGE employees were referred to a federal watchdog to determine whether they violated a law barring government employees from using their job for political activity, known as the Hatch Act.
The unnamed employees secretly conferred with a political advocacy group about a request to match Social Security data with state voter rolls to "find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States," the filing said. It remains unclear whether any data actually went to this group.
"Based on its review of records obtained during or after October 2025, SSA identified communications, use of data, and other actions by the then-SSA DOGE Team that were potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with the District Court's March 20, 2025, temporary restraining order," DOJ attorneys wrote.
DOGE team members also circumvented IT rules to improperly share data on outside servers, sent a password-protected file of private records to DOGE affiliates outside the agency and had the ability to see data even after a judge temporarily halted access.
Despite upgrades in targeting technology and a wealth of access to consumer data, why haven’t you been able to shake irrelevant ads? Research from the University of Florida Warrington College of Business finds that ad agency incentive structures are part of the problem.
“Recent developments in ad technology have enabled ad publishers to sell individual consumer impressions (eyeballs) as they arrive in the website,” said Woochoel Shin, Brian R. Gamache Professor and co-author of the research. “This process potentially leads to an efficient delivery of relevant ads but ad agencies, in their effort to deliver the promised number of ad impressions to their clients, may distort the efficient match.”
Shin and his co-author Jiwoong Shin from the Yale School of Management used a model to replicate the ad purchasing process for an ad agency serving multiple clients. With each client, the ad agency is contractually obligated to allocate an impression, or an ad view, but are limited by the number of ads available in the market and each client’s budget. In the common scenario in which one advertiser is more mainstream than the other, an agency faces a tradeoff.
“It can allocate the first impression to the mainstream advertiser who, generally, has a higher match probability,” Shin writes. “Or it can save this advertiser for a future impression, which may have an even higher match probability. This tradeoff arises because the ad agency needs to serve both advertisers who have a budget constraint.”
The researchers find that when the asymmetry between two advertisers is either extremely large or small, the ad agency is more likely to allocate the ad impression to the more niche advertiser, whose match probability with an impression is generally low. It’s in this scenario that you see more irrelevant ads across your digital platforms.
“The agency essentially ‘dumps’ the current impression to a less relevant (or even completely irrelevant) advertiser,” Shin explains. “The agency’s strategic consideration creates this inefficiency, manifested most obviously in completely irrelevant advertising for consumers even in the presence of perfect targeting accuracy.”
While the advertiser doesn’t have complete control over which audiences see their ads when working with an ad agency, it can play a role in helping address irrelevant targeted ads. Shin and his co-author recommend that it begins with advertisers recognizing the distinction between agency-induced irrelevant advertising from error-based irrelevant advertising.
“For example, advertisers may choose to contract with the agency that also serves advertisers with a similar level of appeal to the consumer population or even avoid the agency serving other advertisers with potentially overlapping consumer segments,” Shin shared.
There are several ways to answer this question, depending on how one interprets the terms “lose” and “war.” All of the arguments have merit, and readers may choose which one seems most persuasive to them.
The conventional view remains that the United States lost the Vietnam War because our opponent, North Vietnam, conquered the side we backed, South Vietnam, which surrendered in April 1975. Although the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong sustained enormous casualties — upward of a million killed by wounds, disease and malnutrition — the communists eventually prevailed.
