New York Times Accused of ‘Putting the Lives of DOGE Employees at Risk’ with Irresponsible Hit Piece
The article in question discusses a controversial piece published by The New York Times, which reveals the names and photos of employees working in Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The author argues that this act resembles doxing, a practice typically condemned for putting individuals at risk by exposing their personal data. The article states that the exposure targets staff members who are largely reshaping federal agencies with non-traditional backgrounds mainly in technology, tasked with reducing government inefficiencies.
Critics, including Musk himself, argue that the publication endangers these workers and categorize the piece as a politically motivated smear, aimed at intimidating those involved in significant government reforms. the general sentiment within certain conservative circles reflects outrage over this perceived attack, emphasizing that it discourages transparency and accountability in government operations. Moreover, the article highlights a contradiction where the identities of the journalists behind the story are obscured while employees are named and photographed, raising questions about media ethics in such cases.
Imagine the outcry if Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency decided to start publishing the names and photographs of government employees they deemed to be inefficient roadblocks to their mission. The left would flip, no?
After all, you may disagree with what they’re doing — Musk certainly does — but the need to know the name and the photograph of some functionary the public might have an ideological beef with, especially in the wake of the murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare late last year, would seem irresponsible.
Yet, The New York Times decided to publish the names and photos of DOGE staffers as part of an “exposé” (I use the quotes because the article seems practically pointless except to name-and-shame) and few, if anyone, outside of the conservative social media sphere seems to be outraged about the doxing.
The article, published Thursday, is titled “The People Carrying Out Musk’s Plans at DOGE.” That’s literally all it is.
In fact, the only thing of substance that the average reader needs to know is in the first paragraph, which is basically what they knew already: “The New York Times identified 49 people within the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, a group formed by Elon Musk that in a short few weeks has radically upended federal agencies. Few members have formal Washington experience. Many are software engineers. All seem to have a clear mandate: Shrink and disrupt the federal government.”
Yeah. He’s said that. So has everyone else. And the “clear mandate” has been popular, except among Democrats.
And those Democrats now know who those people are — complete with black-and-white headshots when available, with a red-and-white “M” in the corner if they used to be an employee of any of Musk’s other companies.
This doesn’t just include top brass, mind you. Minor staffers are included, as well.
Here’s the description of one person, who I won’t identify fully because I refuse to play along any more than I have to with the Gray Lady’s doxing spectacular: “Mr. Fulcher is a health care and technology entrepreneur who has studied computer science. He has been the lead DOGE staffer at the Department of Veterans Affairs, where he serves as a senior adviser to the secretary.”
Oh, well, that’s elucidating. There’s a senior adviser to the secretary involved? This is indeed a rat’s nest of villainy.
Again, the necessity of this is entirely debatable, with Musk agreeing that it was basically an intimidation move.
“The New York Times is putting the lives of DOGE employees at risk,” posted former Fox journalist Breanna Morello. She then noted: “Why do you think they left their reporter’s names out of this article?”
(The Times did put their reporters’ names on the article, but not at the top — as per usual with a byline — and in fine print at the very bottom: “Sarah Cahalan, Kate Conger, Andrew Duehren, Chris Flavelle, Lisa Friedman, Lazaro Gamio, Jon Huang, Ryan Mac, Zach Montague, Eli Murray, Nicholas Nehamas, Madeleine Ngo, Alan Rappeport, Theodore Schleifer and Aric Toler. Additional production by Amanda Cordero and Jessica White.” Just in case you were wondering.)
WARNING: The following contains language that some readers will find offensive.
“The New York Times is pure propaganda. And a bunch of a*****s,” Musk said with a repost:
The New York Times is pure propaganda.
And a bunch of a$$holes. https://t.co/MCYnjaRrcG
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025
Others were critical, as well:
It appears that the New York Times is now in the business of doxing workers for @DOGE.
See how they frame it as “Musk’s Plans”? The majority of the American people support this and the department itself was created by Obama. pic.twitter.com/Cwl3PiYBU8
— James Lee Bright Law (@JLBrightLaw) February 27, 2025
Conservative social media pundit Mario Nawfal also noted that the article seemed to do nothing but dox the employees:
🚨🇺🇸NEW YORK TIMES TARGETS DOGE EMPLOYEES
The New York Times is putting the lives of DOGE employees at risk, exposing the people cutting fraud, waste, and government bloat.
Why smear the people saving taxpayers billions? Why push a hit piece instead of debating the actual… https://t.co/vTBHOJtnGc pic.twitter.com/tjLCXOP0Mf
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 27, 2025
“Why smear the people saving taxpayers billions? Why push a hit piece instead of debating the actual spending cuts?” he wrote.
“They don’t want transparency. They want to intimidate those dismantling the bureaucracy.”
Which is why, in a piece that lists every name, job description and picture very clearly, everyone who worked on it had their names buried at the bottom, in tiny font.
No pictures, either. Wonder why. After all, we’re all about transparency, right?
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...