Leader of the Department of Government Efficiency Elon Musk wears a shirt that says “Tech Support” as he speaks during the first cabinet meeting of US President Donald Trump’s second term.
JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
Leader of the Department of Government Efficiency Elon Musk wears a shirt that says “Tech Support” as he speaks during the first cabinet meeting of US President Donald Trump’s second term.
JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
On Tuesday, 21 employees working under DOGE resigned in protest. In an anonymous letter, they wrote, “We will not use our skills as technologists to compromise core government systems, jeopardize Americans’ sensitive data, or dismantle critical public services.”
D.K. is one of those people – because she’s worried about retaliation for speaking out, NPR has agreed to use only her first and middle initials.
She used to work for U.S. Digital Service, which was launched in 2014 to improve how the federal government delivered information online to Americans. On his first day in office this term, President Trump signed an executive order changing the name to the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
D.K. once worked in the private sector, but wanted to dedicate her skills to helping people.
“When I found United States Digital Service, it seemed like the perfect fit,” she told All Things Considered host Ari Shapiro. “The ability to go out and use my knowledge and expertise to help make the government systems better was the biggest draw.”
The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
Ari Shapiro: So this resignation letter says people who arrived with DOGE fired technical experts, mishandled sensitive data and broke critical systems. Can you give us an example of an instance where you saw that happen?
D.K.: Yeah, there are quite a few. One of the big ones and there has been information that has come out that is incorrect is in regards to the Social Security Administration. The access to that data – that data contains all the information on any person who has ever been eligible for Social Security. It doesn’t mean that it’s somebody who is actively receiving Social Security, and perhaps it could be somebody who passed away quite a long time ago. That data, not only is it being utilized incorrectly, but the access to it and the feeding it into other systems makes all of that data and all of the American people’s data very insecure.
Shapiro: How would you respond to people who say, well, these are disaffected Democrats who are heading for the exits?
D.K.: I would say that is a gross mischaracterization of the United States Digital Service as a whole. While we were founded during the Obama administration, United States Digital Service still operated during the first Trump administration and was able to do good work during that time. United States Digital Service members come from all different backgrounds and a lot of them from the private tech sector, and there are a lot of differing political opinions. We cover the gamut as far as our political leanings and part of being an EOP [Executive Office of the President] employee. And the oath that we swear to the Constitution when we start is to operate in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way. We are here to serve the American people. It is not a political issue.
Shapiro: You could have chosen to stay and try to work within the system. What was the tipping point that made you decide leaving was the best choice?
D.K.: The first real tipping point came when many of my colleagues were fired for seemingly no reason, when they had been performing exceptionally at their jobs and were dedicated to serving this country and to help improve this country’s governmental systems. The second tipping point came when it became clear that the former United States Digital Service would be asked to become more involved with DOGE’s activities. And those activities are the antithesis of what United States Digital Service was founded upon and what the mission has been: to do the most good for the most amount of people, to go where the work is and to hire and empower great people, which means supporting our agency partners and uplifting the federal servants.
I realized that my actions would, if I stayed, would just further legitimize DOGE and potentially cross extreme ethical and legal lines.
Shapiro: Cross ethical and legal lines, how?
D.K.: Some of the activities that DOGE has currently been focused on are gaining access to government systems that house the American people’s data. And with that, it is unclear whether they are upholding privacy and security standards that are regularly practiced throughout the government before the new administration came in. There is a high risk of the American people’s data being exposed or being utilized for nefarious means. And it also creates the opportunity for potential foreign actors to come in and get access to that data, as well. That is completely across the line, both legally and ethically, and something I realized I could no longer do good from the inside and that I must leave.
For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org
Email us at considerthis@npr.org
This episode was produced by Mia Venkat. It was edited by Natalie Winston, Ben Swasey, Courtney Dorning and Nadia Lancy. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.
This episode was produced by Mia Venkat.
It was edited by Natalie Winston, Ben Swasey, Courtney Dorning and Nadia Lancy. with audio engineering by Ted Mebane.
Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.
