The Shadowy Footnote: What’s Really Happening at DOGE?

The recent revelation about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) deleting digital records related to their access to sensitive information from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) raises more questions than it answers. On its surface, this is a story about bureaucratic ineptitude and a failure to follow record-keeping protocols. However, scratch beneath the surface, and you’ll find a complex web of power dynamics, potential conflicts of interest, and an unsettling disregard for transparency.

The investigation into DOGE’s activities began with a whistleblower complaint filed by Dan Berulis in April 2025. The GAO’s subsequent report, published in August 2026, revealed that DOGE officials had accessed sensitive information from NLRB systems without proper authorization. This included personal identifiable data and proprietary trade secrets.

The deletion of records occurred before the GAO investigators even requested access to the systems. According to the report, this was done quickly, raising questions about who was behind the deletion and why it happened so soon. As Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, observed, “The report raises more questions than it resolves.”

Berulis’ whistleblower complaint alleged that DOGE officials had accessed sensitive information from NLRB systems to cover their tracks. If true, this would be a serious breach of trust and potentially even a crime.

However, the real issue here goes beyond the specific actions of DOGE officials. It’s about the culture of accountability within our government agencies. The GAO report highlights a broader problem – one where agencies are more concerned with protecting their own interests than with transparency and accountability.

Similar patterns of behavior have been observed in other government agencies, particularly those with close ties to powerful interests. For example, the recent drop of the NLRB investigation into SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, who also led DOGE, is a case in point. Lawmakers have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and whether the decision was based on politics rather than facts.

The deletion of records by DOGE officials has serious implications for our democracy. It erodes trust in government institutions and undermines the very fabric of our system. The General Records Schedule (GRS) stipulates that records from systems requiring special accountability for access should be kept for six years. It’s disturbing to think that DOGE officials may have deleted these records before they were required to do so.

In an era of increasing partisanship, it’s more crucial than ever that our government agencies prioritize transparency and accountability. The deletion of records by DOGE officials is a stark reminder that we still have a long way to go in achieving this goal.

Ultimately, this incident serves as a reminder that even in the most seemingly mundane bureaucratic processes, there can be deep-seated power dynamics at play. It’s up to us to shine a light on these issues and demand accountability from those entrusted with our public institutions.