Written by Daniel Harper.
A prominent media organization with a history of divisive reporting has taken a step that could jeopardize the safety of numerous individuals employed by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a group tasked with streamlining federal operations and reducing wasteful spending. On Thursday, this outlet disclosed the identities of dozens of these workers, prompting sharp criticism and raising serious ethical questions about journalistic responsibility. For everyday Americans who value accountability in government, this move strikes a troubling chord—it’s a stark reminder of how far some will go to undermine efforts at reform.
The New York Times Targets DOGE Personnel
The New York Times revealed that it had pinpointed at least 45 individuals affiliated with DOGE, an initiative spearheaded by Elon Musk and endorsed by the Trump administration to enhance governmental efficiency. According to the report, these employees hail from diverse backgrounds—few possess traditional Washington experience, with many bringing expertise in software engineering and artificial intelligence instead. This mix includes former Musk associates from companies like SpaceX and xAI, alongside a range of professionals spanning multiple age groups and ethnicities.
What stands out is the timing. Several of these individuals recently scrubbed their social media profiles—an understandable precaution given the documented threats directed at Trump administration affiliates in recent months. The Times, however, pressed forward, attempting to reach each person through emails and online platforms. Curiously, while the outlet had no qualms about exposing these workers, the journalists behind the piece chose anonymity, omitting their bylines from the report—a decision that invites scrutiny about their own accountability.
This isn’t an isolated incident. Earlier this month, another left-leaning publication singled out a DOGE staffer with ties to USAID, leading to his resignation amid an audit of that agency. Such actions suggest a pattern: targeting individuals involved in DOGE’s mission to overhaul bloated bureaucracies. For taxpayers who’ve long questioned the efficiency of sprawling federal agencies—like the Department of Education or FEMA, which DOGE has scrutinized—this feels less like journalism and more like a calculated strike against reform.
Elon Musk’s Sharp Rebuke and the Broader Context
Elon Musk, co-leader of DOGE alongside Vivek Ramaswamy, didn’t mince words in his response. Taking to X, he declared the New York Times “pure propaganda” and its staff “a bunch of a$$holes,” reflecting a frustration shared by many who see this as an attack on DOGE’s objectives. His reaction aligns with his broader stance: transparency in government shouldn’t come at the cost of individual safety. Since DOGE’s inception, Musk has pushed for aggressive cuts—think slashing trillions from federal budgets and axing programs deemed redundant—while facing pushback from entrenched interests.
The stakes are high. DOGE’s efforts have already rattled agencies like USAID, the world’s largest humanitarian aid provider, which faces potential dissolution under Musk’s oversight. Reports indicate his team has accessed sensitive financial systems and shuttered entire programs, moves that have sparked protests, lawsuits, and resignations from federal workers opposed to the changes. Imagine a single mother in Ohio, reliant on FEMA aid after a flood, or a veteran in Texas waiting on VA benefits—DOGE’s cuts could touch their lives. Yet proponents argue the waste—like millions spent housing migrants in New York hotels, as Musk highlighted—demands action.
Musk’s outrage isn’t just personal. It’s rooted in a reality where DOGE staffers, many lacking government pedigrees, are thrust into a volatile spotlight. These aren’t faceless bureaucrats; they’re engineers, tech innovators, and problem-solvers—people who might live next door, now facing risks because of their work. The Times’ decision to name them, especially amid known threats, amplifies the tension between public accountability and personal security.
The Ethical Line: Journalism or Retribution?
Publishing identifiable details about private citizens—particularly those not in elected roles—crosses a boundary for many. Historically, “doxxing” referred to maliciously exposing personal information to incite harassment, a tactic born in hacker circles. The New York Times frames its reporting as a public service, illuminating DOGE’s inner workings. But when death threats against Trump allies have surfaced online, and when X posts decry similar outings as “dangerous,” the line blurs. Was this a quest for truth or a hit list dressed up as news?
Consider the precedent. In 2022, a journalist outing a trucker convoy organizer led to a flood of abuse, forcing the individual to relocate. Today, DOGE workers—some as young as their 20s, others seasoned tech veterans—might face similar fallout. The Times reached out to them, yes, but what happens next? Harassment campaigns on X, flooded inboxes, or worse? The outlet’s anonymity for its reporters only deepens the irony: they shield themselves while exposing others. For readers—perhaps a small-business owner fed up with red tape or a teacher wary of government overreach—this disparity stings.
Meanwhile, DOGE presses on. Its staff, including figures like Amanda Scales (ex-xAI, now at OPM) and Tom Krause (tech CEO, now in Treasury), operate under “special government employee” status, dodging typical disclosure rules. This opacity fuels critics who cry foul over conflicts—like Musk’s firms netting federal contracts—but it also shields workers from broader exposure. The Times’ move, then, feels like a counterpunch in a larger war over transparency and power.
Our Take
The New York Times’ decision to identify DOGE employees is a double-edged sword, and I’ll call it as I see it. On one hand, shining a light on who’s reshaping our government makes sense—taxpayers deserve to know who’s wielding the axe on programs affecting their lives. DOGE’s mission, disruptive as it is, invites scrutiny; its lack of formal structure and Musk’s outsized role demand it. But naming dozens of non-public figures, especially with threats in the air, tips the scale toward recklessness. Journalism should inform, not endanger—and this feels perilously close to the latter.
Reflect on the stakes. DOGE’s push to gut inefficiencies—like the billions funneled through USAID or the IRS’s sprawling payroll—could save money and refocus priorities. Yet the human cost, both for affected citizens and now-targeted workers, can’t be ignored. Musk’s fury is justified; the Times’ anonymity dodge isn’t. This clash won’t resolve soon—legal battles and public backlash will drag it out—but one thing’s clear: exposing these names escalates an already heated fight. Whether that’s progress or peril depends on where you stand. For now, it’s a mess worth watching, not celebrating.
