In April 2025, a federal IT specialist named Dan Berulis stepped into the spotlight with a harrowing whistleblower complaint that shook the foundations of Washington’s administrative oversight. Berulis alleged that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a body led by figures closely aligned with Elon Musk—had gained unfettered, “tenant owner” access to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This level of clearance, which essentially granted them the ability to view, copy, or even alter sensitive data, went far beyond the permissions typical for an agency’s own Chief Information Officer. The alarm was compounded by the fact that the NLRB is a repository for delicate information, including the identities of whistleblowers, proprietary corporate trade secrets, and ongoing investigations into unfair labor practices. Just days after this explosive filing went public via NPR, Berulis was involved in a car accident near his home where he discovered his brakes had been deliberately cut—a terrifying escalation that turned an administrative dispute into a matter of personal safety.
The official response to these allegations was sluggish and, ultimately, inconclusive. While the NLRB’s Office of the Inspector General launched an investigation in May 2025, the matter remained in a gray area until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its own report in April 2026. Billed as a definitive look at DOGE’s interaction with the labor board, the report’s title—”National Labor Relations Board Detailees Did Not Access IT Systems Between April 16 and July 25, 2025″—immediately drew fire for its narrow scope. By focusing only on the period after Berulis had already blown the whistle, the report conveniently sidestepped the timeframe when the most controversial activities were alleged to have occurred. It left the public and lawmakers with a gaping hole in the timeline, failing to account for the crucial weeks leading up to the initial accusations.
The most damning piece of information was effectively buried in the report’s footnotes, revealing a procedural “oops” of massive proportions. The GAO disclosed that in August 2025, shortly after the DOGE team concluded their tenure at the NLRB, the agency deleted all of the team’s digital access records. By scrubbing these accounts before investigators could conduct a forensic review, the NLRB effectively destroyed the proverbial smoking gun. As public policy professor Don Moynihan aptly noted, this footnote is arguably the most important part of the entire document; it transforms the narrative from an investigation into a mystery about accountability. We are left asking: who exactly ordered the deletion of those logs, and was it an act of routine digital cleaning or a deliberate obstruction of justice?
The vacuum created by this data loss has left federal investigators in a frustrating game of “he said, she said.” The GAO was forced to rely on verbal interviews with NLRB staff to piece together what transpired, but they had no way to verify the claims against actual system logs. Because those digital footprints were wiped clean, they could not confirm what information, if any, was viewed, copied, or altered by the DOGE detailees. This lack of transparency is particularly concerning given the identities of those involved. While individuals like Justin Fox, Nate Cavanaugh, and Jordan Wick were identified as having been present at the NLRB, the GAO report remains pointedly vague about the specific actions of specific people, leaving the public to guess the true extent of the intrusion.
The stakes are compounded by a blatant conflict of interest involving Elon Musk, who headed the DOGE initiative. Musk’s own companies, Tesla and SpaceX, have spent years entangled in high-profile labor disputes investigated by the NLRB. In a sequence of events that has drawn the scrutiny of senators like Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal, the NLRB abruptly dropped a major case against SpaceX earlier this year, citing a newfound lack of jurisdiction. When this dismissal is viewed alongside the reports of DOGE oversight and the subsequent purging of digital records, the appearance of impropriety becomes difficult to ignore. Lawmakers are now rightfully questioning whether the decision to drop that case was driven by legal facts or by the immense political leverage exerted by those overseeing the agency’s internal operations.
At its core, this ongoing saga underscores the fragility of government integrity when the lines between private influence and public oversight become blurred. Dan Berulis, who faced physical danger for speaking out, remains a symbol of the risks taken by those who prioritize the truth over institutional silence. As the NLRB, the GAO, and members of Congress continue to grapple with the aftermath, the case stands as a cautionary tale about what happens when administrative safeguards are dismantled in the name of efficiency. Until a full, honest accounting is provided—not just of what was seen, but of why the evidence was destroyed—the public is left to wonder if the agencies tasked with protecting our labor rights are themselves being governed by anything approaching the rule of law.
