Washington, D.C. — In the spring of 2025, Dan Berulis, an IT specialist at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), stepped forward as a whistleblower with explosive allegations about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). What followed, he claims, was a swift escalation: public denunciation by Elon Musk, online harassment, and a terrifying incident in which his vehicle’s brake lines were deliberately cut.
The Whistleblower Complaint
On April 14, 2025, Berulis filed a formal congressional whistleblower complaint. He alleged that DOGE teams had gained unauthorized access to NLRB systems. According to his account, the team appeared to exfiltrate sensitive data, disabled logging and monitoring tools, and deleted records of their own access. Berulis further claimed that login attempts from a Russian IP address occurred shortly afterward, raising serious national security concerns.
The very next day, April 15, Berulis went public in an NPR interview, revealing his identity. He disclosed prior incidents that had already left him fearing for his safety, including a note left on his door accompanied by drone photographs of him walking his dog.
Musk’s Response and Aftermath
On April 19, Elon Musk — co-head of DOGE alongside Vivek Ramaswamy — amplified a post on X (formerly Twitter) that sharply criticized Berulis. The original post, from influencer Mario Nawfal citing another account, described Berulis’s whistleblower claim as “deliberately false.” Musk added his own comment: “Filing a deliberately false whistleblower claim is a serious crime.”
The following day, April 20, Berulis was driving when he suddenly lost brake function. He avoided a potential collision by steering into a sign. A subsequent inspection by a mechanic revealed that the brake lines had been cut, and there was evidence of tampering with a sensor. Police discovered fingerprints at the scene, but the investigation eventually went inactive due to a lack of identified suspects.
Defamation Lawsuit
Berulis responded by filing a defamation lawsuit against Musk in D.C. court on April 17, 2025 (the case was later unsealed). The suit alleges that Musk’s widely viewed post incited harassment and materially increased the risk of physical harm to Berulis. The timing of the brake tampering — occurring just one day after Musk’s amplification — is central to his argument, though no direct link between Musk, DOGE supporters, and the sabotage has been publicly established.
Context and Controversy
DOGE was established under the Trump administration with an ambitious mandate to slash government waste, reduce bureaucracy, and modernize outdated systems. Musk and Ramaswamy’s involvement brought high visibility — and significant controversy. While supporters praised the effort to cut inefficiency, critics raised alarms about chaotic access protocols, insufficient oversight, and potential data security risks across multiple federal agencies.
NLRB officials and some inspectors general reportedly pushed back against Berulis’s claims, describing them as baseless or denying that improper access had occurred. Musk and DOGE defenders framed the episode as an example of bureaucratic resistance to much-needed reforms.
The incident has become emblematic of the intense polarization surrounding DOGE. Critics view it as evidence of overreach and potential retaliation against those who raise concerns. Supporters see it as a politically motivated smear designed to undermine efficiency initiatives.
Ongoing Developments
As of June 2026, Berulis’s defamation lawsuit against Musk remains active. The brake tampering case continues unsolved, with no proven connection to Musk or DOGE. Berulis has since relocated for safety reasons.
The episode underscores deeper tensions in Washington: the clash between aggressive government downsizing efforts and traditional whistleblower protections, the power of social media amplification, and the difficult legal questions surrounding online speech and its real-world consequences. Congressional investigations into DOGE’s data-handling practices have yielded mixed findings, leaving many questions unresolved.
Whether Berulis’s claims prove accurate or overstated, the sequence of events — from internal alert to public firestorm to apparent sabotage — highlights the personal risks that can accompany whistleblowing in today’s hyper-partisan environment.
About The Author
