The Lawfare Podcast: Andrew Bacai on Whistleblowing and DOGE’s Activities at the NLRB
Released on April 30, 2025

Overview

In this episode of The Lawfare Podcast, hosts Kevin Frazier and Andrew Bacai delve into a significant whistleblowing case involving Doge Daniel Baroulis at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Daniel Baroulis, a cybersecurity professional, has raised serious concerns about irregular activities conducted by DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) within the NLRB. The discussion explores the nature of the whistleblower's allegations, the implications for national security and data protection, and the broader impact on government accountability and transparency.

Setting the Scene: Introduction to the Case

Kevin Frazier introduces the episode by summarizing the case: Daniel Baroulis made a formal whistleblower disclosure alleging that DOGE engaged in unauthorized access and potential data exfiltration within the NLRB.

Andrew Bacai emphasizes the importance of protecting national and data security, stating, “We want to ensure that that's protected. And the only way to know what to do is if you have people who can conduct an independent investigation” (02:15).

DOGE’s Involvement at the NLRB

Kevin Frazier asks Andrew to provide a high-level summary of DOGE’s activities at the NLRB.

Andrew Bacai explains that DOGE entered the NLRB unofficially in early March 2025, aiming to identify inefficiencies and streamline government services. He notes, “They were going through and creating user accounts for themselves, usernames, passwords” and operating without proper oversight (04:11). Bacai highlights red flags such as the installation of external containers to obscure DOGE's activities and multiple unauthorized login attempts from Russian sources, indicative of potential hacking attempts (05:07).

Whistleblower’s Discovery of Irregularities

Kevin Frazier probes into how Daniel discovered the irregular activities.

Andrew Bacai details that Daniel noticed anomalies like the unauthorized data leaving the agency at odd hours and excessive data access privileges granted to DOGE. He states, “There is a lot of smoke” suggesting significant wrongdoing (06:41). Bacai underscores the gravity of data exfiltration, noting that ten gigabytes of text data is equivalent to an entire encyclopedia, posing substantial risks (09:58).

NLRB’s Official Response and Broader Implications

Kevin Frazier inquires about the NLRB’s official stance on the allegations.

Andrew Bacai explains that the NLRB claims DOGE was not present officially during their initial infiltration but acknowledges their ongoing presence. He expresses concern that this incident might be just the “tip of the iceberg” with similar issues potentially occurring across other agencies (13:33).

Motivations and Desired Outcomes of Whistleblowing

Kevin Frazier asks about Daniel’s motivations and hopes for the outcome.

Andrew Bacai reveals that Daniel seeks a thorough investigation to either exonerate or confirm the allegations, ensuring that government systems are secure moving forward. He emphasizes the necessity of bipartisan oversight to address and rectify the vulnerabilities exposed by DOGE’s actions (16:39).

Whistleblower Protections and Legal Framework

Kevin Frazier requests an explanation of the legal protections underpinning whistleblowing activities.

Andrew Bacai outlines the legal framework protecting federal employees who expose wrongdoing, citing Title 5, Section 2302, which safeguards against retaliation. He also mentions additional protections for intelligence community members and the importance of statutes that protect whistleblowers from intimidation and threats (25:00).

Personal Ramifications for the Whistleblower

Kevin Frazier inquires about Daniel’s personal experience following his disclosure.

Andrew Bacai shares that Daniel has faced threats and intimidation, including personal messages targeting his family. Despite these challenges, Daniel remains steadfast, aiming to set an example and encourage others to come forward, either publicly or anonymously (27:48; 28:08).

Barriers to Whistleblowing and Encouraging Transparency

Kevin Frazier questions why more individuals do not follow Daniel’s lead in whistleblowing.

Andrew Bacai identifies fear of retaliation as the primary barrier. He stresses the importance of providing clear pathways and protections for those who witness wrongdoing, encouraging them to report issues without fear of professional or personal repercussions (31:24).

Criteria for Whistleblowing and Thresholds for Action

Kevin Frazier seeks clarification on what constitutes actionable wrongdoing versus personal grievances.

Andrew Bacai explains that whistleblowing crosses into actionable territory when there is a “reasonable belief that something's happening wrong,” such as violations of laws, fraud, or significant data breaches. He differentiates between disagreeing with policies and exposing illegal activities (32:42; 33:12).

Next Steps and Future Oversight

Kevin Frazier asks about the potential next steps following Daniel’s whistleblowing.

Andrew Bacai hopes for bipartisan congressional oversight and independent investigations to assess the extent of DOGE’s activities and secure government systems. He emphasizes the need for expert-led inquiries to address both immediate and systemic security concerns (34:57; 35:17).

Conclusion

The episode underscores the critical role of whistleblowers in maintaining government accountability and the protection of sensitive national data. Andrew Bacai advocates for robust legal protections and independent investigations to address and prevent unauthorized activities within federal agencies. The conversation highlights the delicate balance between fostering transparency and ensuring national security in governmental operations.

Notable Quotes

• Andrew Bacai (02:15): “We want to ensure that that's protected. And the only way to know what to do is if you have people who can conduct an independent investigation.”

• Andrew Bacai (06:41): “There is a lot of smoke,” suggesting significant wrongdoing.

• Andrew Bacai (09:58): “It's the equivalent of an entire encyclopedia that was exfiltrated from the NLRB.”

• Andrew Bacai (16:39): “He wants an investigation... to ensure that our government systems are operating in a secure manner.”

• Andrew Bacai (25:00): “Title 5, Section 2302... prohibits retaliation through adverse personnel actions.”

• Andrew Bacai (31:24): “The chief barrier to more folks following Dan's lead ... is fear.”

Key Takeaways

• Whistleblowing Significance: Daniel Baroulis’s case exemplifies the crucial role whistleblowers play in exposing potential government misconduct and safeguarding national security.

• DOGE’s Unauthorized Activities: DOGE’s unofficial infiltration of the NLRB raised significant concerns about data security, unauthorized access, and potential foreign interference.

• Legal Protections: Federal laws provide robust protections for whistleblowers, yet fear and intimidation remain substantial barriers to individuals coming forward.

• Need for Independent Investigations: Comprehensive, bipartisan investigations are essential to address and rectify the vulnerabilities within government systems exposed by this case.

• Encouraging Transparency: Creating a supportive environment for whistleblowers is vital for enhancing government accountability and ensuring the protection of sensitive data.

For more detailed insights and ongoing coverage of national security and lawfare issues, visit www.lawfareblog.com. To support the podcast and gain access to exclusive content, consider becoming a supporter at patreon.com/lawfare.