Government Security Professionals Grapple with Following Procedure Amid DOGE Demands
The U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—helmed by businessman Elon Musk—has been busy during the past few weeks, and several of its interactions have created tensions with security practitioners in the federal workforce.
Last weekend, for instance, DOGE representatives went to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) headquarters in Washington, D.C., and requested access to classified information. USAID’s security chiefs allegedly denied the representatives access and then were placed on administrative leave. The DOGE representatives then gained access to the information, which includes intelligence reports, according to reporting from PBS News.
“Musk’s DOGE crew lacked high-enough security clearance to access that information, so the two USAID security officials—John Vorhees and deputy Brian McGill—were legally obligated to deny access,” a former official told PBS News.
Security Management was unable to reach anyone at USAID for comment on this story. The agency’s website is currently down, and many of the communications staff have been furloughed as the Trump administration seeks to close the agency.
But what does this situation mean for government employees trying to follow security procedures?
Alan Lescht, founding partner of Alan Lescht and Associates, PC, has more than 30 years of experience as an employment lawyer—including representing clients that work for the U.S. federal government.
Lescht says federal employees are being “put in an untenable position. To maintain a clearance, you can’t be found to have provided unauthorized access to classified information. So, if these people are asked to do something that they think is unlawful, then down the road their own clearances could be investigated, rescinded, or revoked.”
Willfully and knowingly disclosing classified information to an unauthorized person, for instance, is a felony punishable by fines and up to 10 years in prison.
Lescht adds that federal employees are supposed to follow the law and decline to violate the law. He advises that people facing a situation like the one described above ensure that what they are being asked to do is unlawful, adding that this determination will need to be made on a case-by-case basis.
“From what we’re hearing, the DOGE folks are being given access to Treasury [Department] and payment information, Social Security numbers, and I have no idea what else,” Lescht adds. “It’s just really something that each person that’s asked to provide access to that information is going to have to do the best job they can to assess if that person has authority.”
Musk, for instance, is classified as a special government employee by the Trump administration. Individuals with this designation can “perform important, but limited, services to the government, with or without compensation, for a period not to exceed 130 days” during a one-year timeframe, The New York Times reports.
While Musk has this designation, it’s not clear to Lescht what the classification is for the rest of the DOGE staff, if they’ve gone through a suitability process (typically required for employment with the federal government), or if they have any security clearances.
There is a formal process that most individuals go through to obtain a security clearance, but the U.S. president can choose to expedite that process.
On Inauguration Day, 20 January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order to grant a designated list of personnel interim Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information security clearances for up to six months.
The order also allowed these individuals to then be granted access, immediately, to the facilities and technology necessary for them to perform the duties of the office they’ve been hired in to. It is unclear, however, if DOGE staff was included in this list of personnel
A group of U.S. senators, including Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter on Wednesday to the White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles to gain more clarity on DOGE’s employees and its activities—including the group’s access to classified information.
“As you know, information is classified to protect the national security interests of the United States,” the senators wrote. “Government employees and contractors only receive access to such information after they have undergone a rigorous background investigation and demonstrated a ‘need to know.’ Circumventing these requirements creases enormous counterintelligence and security risks.
“For example, improper access to facilities and systems containing security clearance files of Intelligence Community personnel puts at risk the safety of the men and women who serve this country. In addition, unauthorized access to classified information risks exposure of our operations and potentially compromises not only our sources and methods, but also those of our allies and partners. If our sources, allies, and partners stop sharing intelligence because they cannot trust us to protect it, we will all be less safe.”
For federal employees who perceive they are being asked to do something they perceive to be illegal, Lescht suggests contacting an employment lawyer to assert their rights.
“If a federal employee is asked to do something they believe to be unlawful and they decline and they are reprimanded or punished, then that federal employee has a right to file a claim under the Whistleblower Protection Act,” Lescht says.
Under the act, employees must file a claim with the office of special counsel, which can then take 120 days to review the claim. Whistleblower protections provide compensatory damages, backpay, front pay, and directive relief, Lescht explains.
If there is no action on the claim after that 120-day period has concluded, the employee can file a lawsuit to litigate their claim.
“We have 16 lawyers and this is what we do,” Lescht says. “We’ve been talking about the goings on every day and our clients are asking for help every day. One of the issues we’re looking into is who are these people making these decisions? Do they have clearances? Do they have authority? Have they overstepped their authority?”
