Introduction

In early 2025, Daniel Berulis, an IT specialist at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) orchestrated a significant cybersecurity breach. Berulis claimed that DOGE accessed and extracted sensitive data from the NLRB, including information related to union activities and personnel. Following his disclosure, Berulis reported experiencing threats and intimidation.

Background on DOGE and Elon Musk’s Role

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was established under President Donald Trump’s administration, with Elon Musk appointed to lead the initiative. DOGE’s mandate was to streamline federal operations and reduce inefficiencies. However, concerns arose regarding DOGE’s methods and Musk’s potential conflicts of interest, given his leadership roles in companies like Tesla and SpaceX, which have faced labor-related investigations.

Allegations of Unauthorized Data Access

Berulis alleged that in March 2025, DOGE personnel gained unauthorized access to the NLRB’s internal systems. He reported that logging protocols were tampered with, and approximately 10 gigabytes of data were removed from the agency’s network. The extracted data reportedly included confidential case files and information about union representatives. Berulis noted that such a data transfer was highly unusual and raised significant security concerns.

Retaliation Against the Whistleblower

Following his complaint, Berulis reported receiving threats, including a letter accompanied by drone-captured photographs of him walking his dog. He interpreted these actions as attempts to intimidate him and deter further disclosures. Despite these threats, Berulis remained employed at the NLRB at the time of his public disclosures.

Legal and Institutional Responses

In response to the alleged breach, several labor unions filed lawsuits seeking to prevent DOGE from accessing sensitive data across various federal agencies. The lawsuits cited violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 and raised concerns about the potential misuse of personal and financial information. Additionally, the Whistleblower Protection Act offers legal safeguards for federal employees like Berulis who expose misconduct.

Conclusion

The allegations brought forth by Daniel Berulis highlight significant concerns regarding data security and the potential overreach of government initiatives like DOGE. The reported unauthorized access to sensitive information and subsequent intimidation of a whistleblower underscore the need for robust oversight and protections for individuals who expose governmental misconduct.