The Secret Service said Tuesday that it disrupted a network of electronic devices in the New York City area that posed imminent telecommunications-based threats to U.S. government officials and potentially the United Nations General Assembly meeting currently underway.

The range of threats included enabling encrypted communications between threat groups and criminals, or disabling cell towers and conducting denial-of-service attacks to shut down cell communications in the region. Matt McCool, special agent in charge of the Secret Service’s New York field office, said the agency’s early analysis of the network indicated “cellular communications between foreign actors and individuals that are known to federal law enforcement.”

In all, the agency said it discovered more than 300 servers and 100,000 SIM cards spread across multiple sites within 35 miles of the U.N. meeting. The Secret Service announcement came the same day President Donald Trump was scheduled to deliver a speech to the General Assembly.

“The potential for disruption to our country’s telecommunications posed by this network of devices cannot be overstated,” U.S. Secret Service Director Sean Curran said in a news release.

McCool said in a video statement that the investigation was ongoing, but the threat the network posed had been neutralized.

“These devices allowed anonymous, encrypted communications between potential threat actors and criminal enterprises, enabling criminal organizations to operate undetected,” he said. “This network had the potential to disable cell phone towers and essentially shut down the cellular network in New York City.

“We will continue working toward identifying those responsible and their intent, including whether their plan was to disrupt the U.N. General Assembly and communications of government and emergency personnel during the official visit of world leaders in and around New York City,” McCool continued.

News outlets briefed on the operation reported that the network anonymously conveyed assassination threats against senior U.S. officials, that the agency had never seen such an extensive operation, that the investigation uncovered empty electronic safehouses rented around the area and that hackers, terrorists, spies and human traffickers could’ve made use of the network. The investigation reportedly began in response to swatting and bomb threats against U.S. officials.

Other participants in the investigation were the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations, the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the New York Police Department.

Some cybersecurity professionals reacted skeptically to elements of the Secret Service announcement.

“Super weird framing by the Secret Service,” Marcus Hutchins, the researcher known for stopping the 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack, wrote on BlueSky. “They found a SIM card farm, which is typically used by criminals to anonymously send calls and texts. They issued a press release claiming ‘it could have shut down the entire NY cell network during the UN general assembly’ which is some serious FUD,” he said, using the acronym for “fear, uncertainty and doubt.”

He added: “it’s possible they found an actual plot to cause widespread destruction, but way more likely they found some generic cybercrime service and have absolutely no clue what it’s for.”

Johns Hopkins cryptography expert Matthew Green wrote on the same social media platform that “I no longer know what we can trust from the Secret Service, especially when a ‘Trump speech’ is involved, and the mechanics of this thing are a little bizarre.”

Updated 9/23/25: to include reaction from cybersecurity professionals.

The post Secret Service says it dismantled extensive telecom threat in NYC area appeared first on CyberScoop.

In a sweeping announcement about a forthcoming executive order, President Donald Trump argued Monday that states are ultimately subservient to the White House when it comes to setting election policy.

“Remember, the states are merely an agent for the federal government in counting and tabulating the votes,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday morning. “They must do what the federal government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.”

Trump also claimed the executive order would end mail-in voting, falsely claiming that other countries stopped the practice due to fraud, as well as “very expensive and SERIOUSLY CONTROVERSIAL voting machines.”

It’s not clear which voting machines Trump was referencing. The president’s allies and friendly media outlets like Fox News and NewsMax were successfully sued by Smartmatic and Dominion for billions of dollars after the 2020 election for falsely claiming that their voting machines were rigged to elect Democratic President Joe Biden.

Either way, Trump has lost dozens of lawsuits attempting to prove fraud, and reportedly nearly signed an executive order at the end of his last term ordering the Department of Defense to seize voting machines, purportedly to examine them for fraud.

A previous executive order from Trump this year, purporting to compel the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission to alter voter registration request forms to include a proof of citizenship section and deny forms to states or voters who don’t provide the information, was struck down by a judge as unconstitutional in April. The judge in the ruling remarked that “no statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process” on regulating elections via executive order.

The Constitution of the United States doesn’t say much about the role of the executive branch in elections.

States are mentioned prominently as the primary administrators, while Congress is empowered to make regulations. The president isn’t mentioned at all.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told CyberScoop that Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution “states unambiguously that the regulation of elections is the power of the states, and only Congress can change that.”

“The president plays literally no role in elections, and that’s by design of the founders,” he said. “Alexander Hamilton foresaw, and made clear in Federalist 59, that a democracy must diversify the power of elections in order to protect itself from an overzealous executive, and therefore power over elections would reside with the several states.”

The contention that the president of the United States had specific authority over states in elections was also waved away as nonsense by constitutional scholars.

“States are agents of the federal government? *lights syllabus on fire,*” wrote Elizabeth Joh, constitutional law professor at the University of California, Davis.

Voting machine security has been a fiercely debated topic in Washington D.C., and among states, particularly over the past two decades as the country has moved toward electronic voting machines.

Voting machines and the software they rely on do have vulnerabilities, but safeguards exist to detect large-scale hacking attempts like those Trump claims. 

First, American elections are famously decentralized, with different states and localities relying on different machines, software and other products. That means a hacker would have to compromise multiple systems and companies to affect votes outside of a single county or state.

Second, voting machines, with few exceptions, are not connected to the internet. Many of the vulnerabilities a hacker would need to exploit the machine require direct, physical access. While this scenario doesn’t make a compromise impossible, experts say the chain-of-custody procedures that voting machines are subject to would make it extremely difficult to gain access to a significant number of voting machines.

Finally, 97% of U.S. voters vote on a machine with paper backups, which allow state officials to audit paper ballots to ensure they match the vote totals reported by the machine. Every post-election audit conducted by a state following the 2020 election confirmed the accuracy of the machine count. 

The president’s post reinforces the idea that, after years of cooperation during past elections,  the federal government and states are likely to have a contentious and adversarial relationship over the next two-to-four years.

In some states like Arizona, election officials have decried their crumbling relationship over the past year with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the federal government’s top civilian cyber agency. Under the Biden and first Trump administration, CISA played a robust, high-profile role providing cybersecurity support and technical expertise to states to harden defenses around voting machines and election infrastructure.

But the White House has fired or sidelined many CISA officials who worked on election security, and fired the regional advisers who provided assistance. Other federal agencies like the FBI and Department of Justice have disbanded task forces on election-related foreign influence operations, and have shifted much of their resourcing to investigating voter fraud.

The DOJ is suing or attempting to take legal action in multiple states, alleging that their voter registration systems are poorly maintained.  Federal complaints have often focused on minor procedural errors made by states or localities to question the citizenship and eligibility of hundreds of thousands of voters.

The president’s announcement came the same day that conservative media outlet Newsmax informed the Securities and Exchange Commission it had agreed to a $67 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over false claims the network made in the wake of the 2020 election that their voting systems had been hacked or compromised to alter the outcome of the presidential election. 

Fox News also paid $787 million to settle a lawsuit with Dominion, and Newsmax had already paid $40 million to another voting machine manufacturer, Smartmatic, to settle similar defamation charges.

In an article on the settlement, Newsmax remained defiant about its role in the 2020 election, claiming that they would have succeeded in proving the vote tallies were rigged if not for the courts rigging proceedings against them.

“Despite its confidence in its reporting, Newsmax determined the Delaware court with Judge Eric Davis presiding would not provide a fair trial wherein the company could present standard libel defenses to a jury,” the outlet wrote.

Becker said Trump “has spread lies about our elections for years now, and every time he and his allies are offered an opportunity to back those statements up in court, with evidence subject to cross-examination, they’ve failed.”

“In defamation cases brought against Fox News, Rudy Giuliani, Kari Lake, and Mike Lindell, every defendant had an absolute right to defend their statements as true, and every defendant failed to present even a shred of evidence,” he added. “All either settled for vast amounts, conceded liability for defamation, or were found liable.”

The post Trump threatens executive order on elections, claims states must obey appeared first on CyberScoop.

Sean Cairncross took his post this week as national cyber director at what many agree is a “pivotal” time for the office, giving him a chance to shape its future role in the bureaucracy, tackle difficult policy issues, shore up industry relations and take on key threats.

The former White House official, Republican National Committee leader and head of a federal foreign aid agency became just the third Senate-confirmed national cyber director at an office (ONCD) that’s only four years old. He’s the first person President Donald Trump has assigned to the position after the legislation establishing it became law at the end of his first term.

Two people — House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., and Adam Meyers, senior vice president of counter adversary operations at CrowdStrike — specifically used the word “pivotal” to describe this moment for Cairncross and his office, while others said as much in other ways.

“It’s a new organization, and with any new organization, you’ve got to build up the muscle memory of how ONCD fits into the interagency process and what it means to set a unified national cybersecurity agenda, the language the director was using in his nomination hearing,” Nicholas Leiserson, a former assistant national cyber director under President Joe Biden who worked on the legislation to create the office as a Hill staffer, told CyberScoop. “We need to make sure that ONCD is the center of the policymaking apparatus. … That is going to be critical to his success.”

Brian Harrell, a former infrastructure protection official at the Deparment of Homeland Security and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in Trump’s first term, said that with personnel reductions at CISA and change elsewhere, Cairncross has a big opportunity.

“ONCD must be seen as the air traffic controller on all things cyber moving forward,” he said via email. “Given the agency rebuild happening at CISA, and new leadership at FBI and NSA cyber, now is the time to build influence and patch struggling relationships. Add to this, a private sector that is unsure where to turn to during a crisis … Sean must be seen as a convener and facilitator to get the President the right information to make key decisions.”

On the policy front, Leiserson, now senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Security and Technology, said Cairncross has a great opportunity to work through the thicket of federal cybersecurity regulations and disentangle them in a harmonization effort that began under Biden and has bipartisan support. Some seasoned staffers who worked on the issue then remain in the federal government, Leiserson said.

Garbarino also brought up harmonization in a written statement as an issue he wants to see Cairncross address, along with leading the charge renewing the 2015 threat data sharing law known as the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, set to expire next month. Jason Oxman, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, said in a press release congratulating Cairncross that renewal of that law was “essential to help ONCD achieve its cybersecurity mission.”

USTelecom President and CEO Jonathan Spalter said enhancing the government’s relationship with the private sector, a subject Cairncross brought up in his confirmation hearing, was also vital. Dave DeWalt, CEO of NightDragon, a venture capital and advisory firm, said of Cairncross in a statement to CyberScoop: “I know that under his leadership, public-private partnership will continue to strengthen and secure our future.”

Those policy challenges, as well as the challenges of strengthening the national cyber director’s standing within the federal government and fortifying the public-private partnership, go hand-in-hand with the threats Cairncross will have to confront.

“The mission of the Office of the National Cyber Director has never been more critical: advancing a unified, strategic, and forward-leaning approach to the cyber threats facing our increasingly digital society,” Frank Cilluffo, director of the McCrary Institute for Cyber and Critical Infrastructure Security at Auburn University and a former member of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission that recommended that Congress create the office, said in a written statement.

Leiserson said threats like the Chinese hackers known as Salt Typhoon penetrating telecommunications networks surely would be at the forefront of Cairncross’s concerns — a threat Cairncross brought up at his confirmation hearing. Harrell mentioned the looming possibility of a Chinese attack on Taiwan.

Oxman raised the threats to U.S. critical infrastructure and the supply chain. CrowdStrike’s Meyers, in a statement to CyberScoop, said the pivotal moment of Cairncross’s confirmation comes as “threat actors weaponize AI and the threat landscape continues to evolve at machine speed.”

Cairncross comes into the job with far less cybersecurity experience than many who have held federal cyber leadership posts. And he comes in with other potential disadvantages, too. At his nomination hearing, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., pointed to deep budget cuts at CISA, telling Cairncross that “you will oversee the single biggest cut in federal cybersecurity dollars.”

But Leiserson said it was encouraging that Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal would keep funding for the Office of the National Cyber Director pretty level.

There are other reasons to be optimistic about the view from federal leaders on the office, too, some pointed out. Cilluffo noted that the 59-35 vote for Cairncross in the Senate suggested some bipartisan support. Leiserson observed that Cairncross was one of the few nominees to escape the nominee backlog in the Senate before lawmakers went on recess.

As for his relative lack of cyber experience, Cairncross has talked about surrounding himself with the right people, Leiserson said.

“You want the unicorns who are incredibly politically astute and who have very deep cyber knowledge,” he said. “These people are hard to come by. We’ve had real cyber experts on the job. Now we’ve got someone who … is going to have an easy time navigating the West Wing. That is a skill set that is vital for running a White House organization, and shouldn’t be discounted.”

The post New National Cyber Director Cairncross faces challenges on policy, bureaucracy, threats appeared first on CyberScoop.

As the U.S. government contemplates additional sanctions on Moscow, the United Kingdom went ahead and levied its own Friday against what it said was a group of Russia’s hackers and spies. 

The sanctions target 18 military intelligence officers and three divisions of the Russian military unit known as the GRU. Cyber operations in support of Russia’s war against Ukraine drew the U.K. targeting of the hackers.

“The GRU routinely uses cyber and information operations to sow chaos, division and disorder in Ukraine and across the world with devastating real-world consequences,” reads a news release.

But the sanctions also go after the use of malware tied to an attempted assassination of a former Russian double agent residing on U.K. soil and the related poisoning of his daughter.

“Today’s action also hits GRU military intelligence officers responsible for historically targeting Yulia Skripal’s device with malicious malware known as X-Agent — five years before GRU military intelligence officers’ failed attempt to murder Yulia and Sergei Skripal with the deadly Novichok nerve agent in Salisbury,” the release states.

According to a 2018 U.S. grand jury indictment, X-Agent is custom malware that Russia developed to hack the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to interfere in the 2016 election.

The U.K. sanctioned some of the military officers for spying operations like those involved in the 2022 bombing of Mauripol Theatre, which had been sheltering Ukrainian civilians.

In the U.S. Congress, lawmakers have been demonstrating some rare bipartisan consensus on the notion of slapping Moscow with more sanctions. That legislation would likewise seek to punish Russian cyber operations in Ukraine, among other Russian aggression in the former Soviet satellite nation.

President Donald Trump, too, has grown impatient with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Ukraine war and has threatened further sanctions against Moscow and its trade partners.

The United Kingdom warned in a separate alert Friday that GRU cyber operations could spill over from the Ukraine war.

“The future trajectory of this threat remains uncertain and international partners need to prepare for its redirection and a range of potential scenarios,” the alert states.

The three units drawing U.K. sanctions have been connected to a range of hacking activity, from meddling in elections across the globe to the massive 2017 NotPetya attack.

“GRU spies are running a campaign to destabilise Europe, undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and threaten the safety of British citizens,” said U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy. “The Kremlin should be in no doubt: we see what they are trying to do in the shadows and we won’t tolerate it. …  Putin’s hybrid threats and aggression will never break our resolve.”

Also Friday, the European Union agreed to sanctions targeting Russia’s energy and banking sectors, the bloc’s 18th set of sanctions against Moscow.

You can read the full list of those sanctioned on the U.K. government’s website.

This article has been updated to reflect news about the additional EU sanctions.

The post UK sanctions Russian hackers, spies as US weighs its own punishments for Russia appeared first on CyberScoop.

Marko Elez, a 25-year-old employee at Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has been granted access to sensitive databases at the U.S. Social Security Administration, the Treasury and Justice departments, and the Department of Homeland Security. So it should fill all Americans with a deep sense of confidence to learn that Mr. Elez over the weekend inadvertently published a private key that allowed anyone to interact directly with more than four dozen large language models (LLMs) developed by Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI.

On July 13, Mr. Elez committed a code script to GitHub called “agent.py” that included a private application programming interface (API) key for xAI. The inclusion of the private key was first flagged by GitGuardian, a company that specializes in detecting and remediating exposed secrets in public and proprietary environments. GitGuardian’s systems constantly scan GitHub and other code repositories for exposed API keys, and fire off automated alerts to affected users.

Philippe Caturegli, “chief hacking officer” at the security consultancy Seralys, said the exposed API key allowed access to at least 52 different LLMs used by xAI. The most recent LLM in the list was called “grok-4-0709” and was created on July 9, 2025.

Grok, the generative AI chatbot developed by xAI and integrated into Twitter/X, relies on these and other LLMs (a query to Grok before publication shows Grok currently uses Grok-3, which was launched in Feburary 2025). Earlier today, xAI announced that the Department of Defense will begin using Grok as part of a contract worth up to $200 million. The contract award came less than a week after Grok began spewing antisemitic rants and invoking Adolf Hitler.

Mr. Elez did not respond to a request for comment. The code repository containing the private xAI key was removed shortly after Caturegli notified Elez via email. However, Caturegli said the exposed API key still works and has not yet been revoked.

“If a developer can’t keep an API key private, it raises questions about how they’re handling far more sensitive government information behind closed doors,” Caturegli told KrebsOnSecurity.

Prior to joining DOGE, Marko Elez worked for a number of Musk’s companies. His DOGE career began at the Department of the Treasury, and a legal battle over DOGE’s access to Treasury databases showed Elez was sending unencrypted personal information in violation of the agency’s policies.

While still at Treasury, Elez resigned after The Wall Street Journal linked him to social media posts that advocated racism and eugenics. When Vice President J.D. Vance lobbied for Elez to be rehired, President Trump agreed and Musk reinstated him.

Since his re-hiring as a DOGE employee, Elez has been granted access to databases at one federal agency after another. TechCrunch reported in February 2025 that he was working at the Social Security Administration. In March, Business Insider found Elez was part of a DOGE detachment assigned to the Department of Labor.

In April, The New York Times reported that Elez held positions at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureaus, as well as the Department of Homeland Security. The Washington Post later reported that Elez, while serving as a DOGE advisor at the Department of Justice, had gained access to the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s Courts and Appeals System (EACS).

Elez is not the first DOGE worker to publish internal API keys for xAI: In May, KrebsOnSecurity detailed how another DOGE employee leaked a private xAI key on GitHub for two months, exposing LLMs that were custom made for working with internal data from Musk’s companies, including SpaceX, Tesla and Twitter/X.

Caturegli said it’s difficult to trust someone with access to confidential government systems when they can’t even manage the basics of operational security.

“One leak is a mistake,” he said. “But when the same type of sensitive key gets exposed again and again, it’s not just bad luck, it’s a sign of deeper negligence and a broken security culture.”

A security architect with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleges that employees from Elon Musk‘s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) transferred gigabytes of sensitive data from agency case files in early March, using short-lived accounts configured to leave few traces of network activity. The NLRB whistleblower said the unusual large data outflows coincided with multiple blocked login attempts from an Internet address in Russia that tried to use valid credentials for a newly-created DOGE user account.

The allegations came in an April 14 letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, signed by Daniel J. Berulis, a 38-year-old security architect at the NLRB.

NPR, which was the first to report on Berulis’s whistleblower complaint, says NLRB is a small, independent federal agency that investigates and adjudicates complaints about unfair labor practices, and stores “reams of potentially sensitive data, from confidential information about employees who want to form unions to proprietary business information.”

The complaint documents a one-month period beginning March 3, during which DOGE officials reportedly demanded the creation of all-powerful “tenant admin” accounts in NLRB systems that were to be exempted from network logging activity that would otherwise keep a detailed record of all actions taken by those accounts.

Berulis said the new DOGE accounts had unrestricted permission to read, copy, and alter information contained in NLRB databases. The new accounts also could restrict log visibility, delay retention, route logs elsewhere, or even remove them entirely — top-tier user privileges that neither Berulis nor his boss possessed.

Berulis writes that on March 3, a black SUV accompanied by a police escort arrived at his building — the NLRB headquarters in Southeast Washington, D.C. The DOGE staffers did not speak with Berulis or anyone else in NLRB’s IT staff, but instead met with the agency leadership.

“Our acting chief information officer told us not to adhere to standard operating procedure with the DOGE account creation, and there was to be no logs or records made of the accounts created for DOGE employees, who required the highest level of access,” Berulis wrote of their instructions after that meeting.

“We have built in roles that auditors can use and have used extensively in the past but would not give the ability to make changes or access subsystems without approval,” he continued. “The suggestion that they use these accounts was not open to discussion.”

Berulis found that on March 3 one of the DOGE accounts created an opaque, virtual environment known as a “container,” which can be used to build and run programs or scripts without revealing its activities to the rest of the world. Berulis said the container caught his attention because he polled his colleagues and found none of them had ever used containers within the NLRB network.

Berulis said he also noticed that early the next morning — between approximately 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. EST on Tuesday, March 4  — there was a large increase in outgoing traffic from the agency. He said it took several days of investigating with his colleagues to determine that one of the new accounts had transferred approximately 10 gigabytes worth of data from the NLRB’s NxGen case management system.

Berulis said neither he nor his co-workers had the necessary network access rights to review which files were touched or transferred — or even where they went. But his complaint notes the NxGen database contains sensitive information on unions, ongoing legal cases, and corporate secrets.

“I also don’t know if the data was only 10gb in total or whether or not they were consolidated and compressed prior,” Berulis told the senators. “This opens up the possibility that even more data was exfiltrated. Regardless, that kind of spike is extremely unusual because data almost never directly leaves NLRB’s databases.”

Berulis said he and his colleagues grew even more alarmed when they noticed nearly two dozen login attempts from a Russian Internet address (83.149.30,186) that presented valid login credentials for a DOGE employee account — one that had been created just minutes earlier. Berulis said those attempts were all blocked thanks to rules in place that prohibit logins from non-U.S. locations.

“Whoever was attempting to log in was using one of the newly created accounts that were used in the other DOGE related activities and it appeared they had the correct username and password due to the authentication flow only stopping them due to our no-out-of-country logins policy activating,” Berulis wrote. “There were more than 20 such attempts, and what is particularly concerning is that many of these login attempts occurred within 15 minutes of the accounts being created by DOGE engineers.”

According to Berulis, the naming structure of one Microsoft user account connected to the suspicious activity suggested it had been created and later deleted for DOGE use in the NLRB’s cloud systems: “DogeSA_2d5c3e0446f9@nlrb.microsoft.com.” He also found other new Microsoft cloud administrator accounts with nonstandard usernames, including “Whitesox, Chicago M.” and “Dancehall, Jamaica R.”

On March 5, Berulis documented that a large section of logs for recently created network resources were missing, and a network watcher in Microsoft Azure was set to the “off” state, meaning it was no longer collecting and recording data like it should have.

Berulis said he discovered someone had downloaded three external code libraries from GitHub that neither NLRB nor its contractors ever use. A “readme” file in one of the code bundles explained it was created to rotate connections through a large pool of cloud Internet addresses that serve “as a proxy to generate pseudo-infinite IPs for web scraping and brute forcing.” Brute force attacks involve automated login attempts that try many credential combinations in rapid sequence.

The complaint alleges that by March 17 it became clear the NLRB no longer had the resources or network access needed to fully investigate the odd activity from the DOGE accounts, and that on March 24, the agency’s associate chief information officer had agreed the matter should be reported to US-CERT. Operated by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), US-CERT provides on-site cyber incident response capabilities to federal and state agencies.

But Berulis said that between April 3 and 4, he and the associate CIO were informed that “instructions had come down to drop the US-CERT reporting and investigation and we were directed not to move forward or create an official report.” Berulis said it was at this point he decided to go public with his findings.

Tim Bearese, the NLRB’s acting press secretary, told NPR that DOGE neither requested nor received access to its systems, and that “the agency conducted an investigation after Berulis raised his concerns but ‘determined that no breach of agency systems occurred.'” The NLRB did not respond to questions from KrebsOnSecurity.

Nevertheless, Berulis has shared a number of supporting screenshots showing agency email discussions about the unexplained account activity attributed to the DOGE accounts, as well as NLRB security alerts from Microsoft about network anomalies observed during the timeframes described.

As CNN reported last month, the NLRB has been effectively hobbled since President Trump fired three board members, leaving the agency without the quorum it needs to function.

“Despite its limitations, the agency had become a thorn in the side of some of the richest and most powerful people in the nation — notably Elon Musk, Trump’s key supporter both financially and arguably politically,” CNN wrote.

Both Amazon and Musk’s SpaceX have been suing the NLRB over complaints the agency filed in disputes about workers’ rights and union organizing, arguing that the NLRB’s very existence is unconstitutional. On March 5, a U.S. appeals court unanimously rejected Musk’s claim that the NLRB’s structure somehow violates the Constitution.

Berulis shared screenshots with KrebsOnSecurity showing that on the day the NPR published its story about his claims (April 14), the deputy CIO at NLRB sent an email stating that administrative control had been removed from all employee accounts. Meaning, suddenly none of the IT employees at the agency could do their jobs properly anymore, Berulis said.

Berulis shared a screenshot of an agency-wide email dated April 16 from NLRB director Lasharn Hamilton saying DOGE officials had requested a meeting, and reiterating claims that the agency had no prior “official” contact with any DOGE personnel. The message informed NLRB employees that two DOGE representatives would be detailed to the agency part-time for several months.

Berulis told KrebsOnSecurity he was in the process of filing a support ticket with Microsoft to request more information about the DOGE accounts when his network administrator access was restricted. Now, he’s hoping lawmakers will ask Microsoft to provide more information about what really happened with the accounts.

“That would give us way more insight,” he said. “Microsoft has to be able to see the picture better than we can. That’s my goal, anyway.”

Berulis’s attorney told lawmakers that on April 7, while his client and legal team were preparing the whistleblower complaint, someone physically taped a threatening note to Mr. Berulis’s home door with photographs — taken via drone — of him walking in his neighborhood.

“The threatening note made clear reference to this very disclosure he was preparing for you, as the proper oversight authority,” reads a preface by Berulis’s attorney Andrew P. Bakaj. “While we do not know specifically who did this, we can only speculate that it involved someone with the ability to access NLRB systems.”

Berulis said the response from friends, colleagues and even the public has been largely supportive, and that he doesn’t regret his decision to come forward.

“I didn’t expect the letter on my door or the pushback from [agency] leaders,” he said. “If I had to do it over, would I do it again? Yes, because it wasn’t really even a choice the first time.”

For now, Mr. Berulis is taking some paid family leave from the NLRB. Which is just as well, he said, considering he was stripped of the tools needed to do his job at the agency.

“They came in and took full administrative control and locked everyone out, and said limited permission will be assigned on a need basis going forward” Berulis said of the DOGE employees. “We can’t really do anything, so we’re literally getting paid to count ceiling tiles.”

Further reading: Berulis’s complaint (PDF).

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -U.S. Constitution, First Amendment.

In an address to Congress this month, President Trump claimed he had “brought free speech back to America.” But barely two months into his second term, the president has waged an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment rights of journalists, students, universities, government workers, lawyers and judges.

This story explores a slew of recent actions by the Trump administration that threaten to undermine all five pillars of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedoms concerning speech, religion, the media, the right to assembly, and the right to petition the government and seek redress for wrongs.

THE RIGHT TO PETITION

The right to petition allows citizens to communicate with the government, whether to complain, request action, or share viewpoints — without fear of reprisal. But that right is being assaulted by this administration on multiple levels. For starters, many GOP lawmakers are now heeding their leadership’s advice to stay away from local town hall meetings and avoid the wrath of constituents affected by the administration’s many federal budget and workforce cuts.

Another example: President Trump recently fired most of the people involved in processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for government agencies. FOIA is an indispensable tool used by journalists and the public to request government records, and to hold leaders accountable.

The biggest story by far this week was the bombshell from The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who recounted how he was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat with National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and 16 other Trump administration officials discussing plans for an upcoming attack on Yemen.

One overlooked aspect of Goldberg’s incredible account is that by planning and coordinating the attack on Signal — which features messages that can auto-delete after a short time — administration officials were evidently seeking a way to avoid creating a lasting (and potentially FOIA-able) record of their deliberations.

“Intentional or not, use of Signal in this context was an act of erasure—because without Jeffrey Goldberg being accidentally added to the list, the general public would never have any record of these communications or any way to know they even occurred,” Tony Bradley wrote this week at Forbes.

Petitioning the government, particularly when it ignores your requests, often requires challenging federal agencies in court. But that becomes far more difficult if the most competent law firms start to shy away from cases that may involve crossing the president and his administration.

On March 22, the president issued a memorandum that directs heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States,” or in matters that come before federal agencies.

The POTUS recently issued several executive orders railing against specific law firms with attorneys who worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president announced that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports.

Trump issued another order naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to the president’s causes.

Other Trump executive orders targeted law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, both of which have attorneys that worked with special counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But this week, two federal judges in separate rulings froze parts of those orders.

“There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, and that is qualified as a constitutional harm,” wrote Judge Richard Leon, who ruled against the executive order targeting WilmerHale.

President Trump recently took the extraordinary step of calling for the impeachment of federal judges who rule against the administration. Trump called U.S. District Judge James Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and urged he be removed from office for blocking deportation of Venezuelan alleged gang members under a rarely invoked wartime legal authority.

In a rare public rebuke to a sitting president, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts issued a statement on March 18 pointing out that “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

The U.S. Constitution provides that judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. The Constitution also states that judges’ salaries cannot be reduced while they are in office.

Undeterred, House Speaker Mike Johnson this week suggested the administration could still use the power of its purse to keep courts in line, and even floated the idea of wholesale eliminating federal courts.

“We do have authority over the federal courts as you know,” Johnson said. “We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts, and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act, so stay tuned for that.”

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

President Trump has taken a number of actions to discourage lawful demonstrations at universities and colleges across the country, threatening to cut federal funding for any college that supports protests he deems “illegal.”

A Trump executive order in January outlined a broad federal crackdown on what he called “the explosion of antisemitism” on U.S. college campuses. This administration has asserted that foreign students who are lawfully in the United States on visas do not enjoy the same free speech or due process rights as citizens.

Reuters reports that the acting civil rights director at the Department of Education on March 10 sent letters to 60 educational institutions warning they could lose federal funding if they don’t do more to combat anti-semitism. On March 20, Trump issued an order calling for the closure of the Education Department.

Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been detaining and trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States. The administration is targeting students and academics who spoke out against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, or who were active in campus protests against U.S. support for the attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Thursday that at least 300 foreign students have seen their visas revoked under President Trump, a far higher number than was previously known.

In his first term, Trump threatened to use the national guard or the U.S. military to deal with protesters, and in campaigning for re-election he promised to revisit the idea.

“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” Trump told Fox News in October 2024. “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

This term, Trump acted swiftly to remove the top judicial advocates in the armed forces who would almost certainly push back on any request by the president to use U.S. soldiers in an effort to quell public protests, or to arrest and detain immigrants. In late February, the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top legal officers for the military services — those responsible for ensuring the Uniform Code of Military Justice is followed by commanders.

Military.com warns that the purge “sets an alarming precedent for a crucial job in the military, as President Donald Trump has mused about using the military in unorthodox and potentially illegal ways.” Hegseth told reporters the removals were necessary because he didn’t want them to pose any “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.”

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

President Trump has sued a number of U.S. news outlets, including 60 Minutes, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and other smaller media organizations for unflattering coverage.

In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent Paramount, Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election. The TV news show last month published transcripts of the interview at the heart of the dispute, but Paramount is reportedly considering a settlement to avoid potentially damaging its chances of winning the administration’s approval for a pending multibillion-dollar merger.

The president sued The Des Moines Register and its parent company, Gannett, for publishing a poll showing Trump trailing Harris in the 2024 presidential election in Iowa (a state that went for Trump). The POTUS also is suing the Pulitzer Prize board over 2018 awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of purported Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Whether or not any of the president’s lawsuits against news organizations have merit or succeed is almost beside the point. The strategy behind suing the media is to make reporters and newsrooms think twice about criticizing or challenging the president and his administration. The president also knows some media outlets will find it more expedient to settle.

Trump also sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for stating that the president had been found liable for “rape” in a civil case [Trump was found liable of sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll]. ABC parent Disney settled that claim by agreeing to donate $15 million to the Trump Presidential Library.

Following the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Facebook blocked President Trump’s account. Trump sued Meta, and after the president’s victory in 2024 Meta settled and agreed to pay Trump $25 million: $22 million would go to his presidential library, and the rest to legal fees. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also announced Facebook and Instagram would get rid of fact-checkers and rely instead on reader-submitted “community notes” to debunk disinformation on the social media platform.

Brendan Carr, the president’s pick to run the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has pledged to “dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.” But on January 22, 2025, the FCC reopened complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC over their coverage of the 2024 election. The previous FCC chair had dismissed the complaints as attacks on the First Amendment and an attempt to weaponize the agency for political purposes.

According to Reuters, the complaints call for an investigation into how ABC News moderated the pre-election TV debate between Trump and Biden, and appearances of then-Vice President Harris on 60 Minutes and on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.”

Since then, the FCC has opened investigations into NPR and PBS, alleging that they are breaking sponsorship rules. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a think tank based in Washington, D.C., noted that the FCC is also investigating KCBS in San Francisco for reporting on the location of federal immigration authorities.

“Even if these investigations are ultimately closed without action, the mere fact of opening them – and the implicit threat to the news stations’ license to operate – can have the effect of deterring the press from news coverage that the Administration dislikes,” the CDT’s Kate Ruane observed.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to “open up” libel laws, with the goal of making it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage. But this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge brought by Trump donor and Las Vegas casino magnate Steve Wynn to overturn the landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which insulates the press from libel suits over good-faith criticism of public figures.

The president also has insisted on picking which reporters and news outlets should be allowed to cover White House events and participate in the press pool that trails the president. He barred the Associated Press from the White House and Air Force One over their refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico by another name.

And the Defense Department has ordered a number of top media outlets to vacate their spots at the Pentagon, including CNN, The Hill, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NBC News, Politico and National Public Radio.

“Incoming media outlets include the New York Post, Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, the Free Press, the Daily Caller, Newsmax, the Huffington Post and One America News Network, most of whom are seen as conservative or favoring Republican President Donald Trump,” Reuters reported.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Shortly after Trump took office again in January 2025, the administration began circulating lists of hundreds of words that government staff and agencies shall not use in their reports and communications.

The Brookings Institution notes that in moving to comply with this anti-speech directive, federal agencies have purged countless taxpayer-funded data sets from a swathe of government websites, including data on crime, sexual orientation, gender, education, climate, and global development.

The New York Times reports that in the past two months, hundreds of terabytes of digital resources analyzing data have been taken off government websites.

“While in many cases the underlying data still exists, the tools that make it possible for the public and researchers to use that data have been removed,” The Times wrote.

On Jan. 27, Trump issued a memo (PDF) that paused all federally funded programs pending a review of those programs for alignment with the administration’s priorities. Among those was ensuring that no funding goes toward advancing “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies.”

According to the CDT, this order is a blatant attempt to force government grantees to cease engaging in speech that the current administration dislikes, including speech about the benefits of diversity, climate change, and LGBTQ issues.

“The First Amendment does not permit the government to discriminate against grantees because it does not like some of the viewpoints they espouse,” the CDT’s Ruane wrote. “Indeed, those groups that are challenging the constitutionality of the order argued as much in their complaint, and have won an injunction blocking its implementation.”

On January 20, the same day Trump issued an executive order on free speech, the president also issued an executive order titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” which froze funding for programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Among those were programs designed to empower civil society and human rights groups, journalists and others responding to digital repression and Internet shutdowns.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), this includes many freedom technologies that use cryptography, fight censorship, protect freedom of speech, privacy and anonymity for millions of people around the world.

“While the State Department has issued some limited waivers, so far those waivers do not seem to cover the open source internet freedom technologies,” the EFF wrote about the USAID disruptions. “As a result, many of these projects have to stop or severely curtail their work, lay off talented workers, and stop or slow further development.”

On March 14, the president signed another executive order that effectively gutted the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees or funds media outlets including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America (VOA). The USAGM also oversees Radio Free Asia, which supporters say has been one of the most reliable tools used by the government to combat Chinese propaganda.

But this week, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, temporarily blocked USAGM’s closure by the administration.

“RFE/RL has, for decades, operated as one of the organizations that Congress has statutorily designated to carry out this policy,” Lamberth wrote in a 10-page opinion. “The leadership of USAGM cannot, with one sentence of reasoning offering virtually no explanation, force RFE/RL to shut down — even if the President has told them to do so.”

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

The Trump administration rescinded a decades-old policy that instructed officers not to take immigration enforcement actions in or near “sensitive” or “protected” places, such as churches, schools, and hospitals.

That directive was immediately challenged in a case brought by a group of Quakers, Baptists and Sikhs, who argued the policy reversal was keeping people from attending services for fear of being arrested on civil immigration violations. On Feb. 24, a federal judge agreed and blocked ICE agents from entering churches or targeting migrants nearby.

The president’s executive order allegedly addressing antisemitism came with a fact sheet that described college campuses as “infested” with “terrorists” and “jihadists.” Multiple faith groups expressed alarm over the order, saying it attempts to weaponize antisemitism and promote “dehumanizing anti-immigrant policies.”

The president also announced the creation of a “Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias,” to be led by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Never mind that Christianity is easily the largest faith in America and that Christians are well-represented in Congress.

The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, a Baptist minister and head of the progressive Interfaith Alliance, issued a statement accusing Trump of hypocrisy in claiming to champion religion by creating the task force.

“From allowing immigration raids in churches, to targeting faith-based charities, to suppressing religious diversity, the Trump Administration’s aggressive government overreach is infringing on religious freedom in a way we haven’t seen for generations,” Raushenbush said.

A statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the task force could lead to religious persecution of those with other faiths.

“Rather than protecting religious beliefs, this task force will misuse religious freedom to justify bigotry, discrimination, and the subversion of our civil rights laws,” said Rachel Laser, the group’s president and CEO.

Where is President Trump going with all these blatant attacks on the First Amendment? The president has made no secret of his affection for autocratic leaders and “strongmen” around the world, and he is particularly enamored with Hungary’s far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has visited Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort twice in the past year.

A March 15 essay in The Atlantic by Hungarian investigative journalist András Pethő recounts how Orbán rose to power by consolidating control over the courts, and by building his own media universe while simultaneously placing a stranglehold on the independent press.

“As I watch from afar what’s happening to the free press in the United States during the first weeks of Trump’s second presidency — the verbal bullying, the legal harassment, the buckling by media owners in the face of threats — it all looks very familiar,” Pethő wrote. “The MAGA authorities have learned Orbán’s lessons well.”