Concerns have been raised by several former US Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials as well as one of the biggest union federations regarding the potential for Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to obtain confidential information that whistleblowers at the billionaire’s companies have shared with OSHA and the Department of Labour.
According to a public database the agency maintains that despite Musk’s status as a “special government employee” under the Trump administration, OSHA has opened more than 50 ongoing occupational health and safety charges against SpaceX, Tesla, and The Boring Company in the last five years. DOGE employees have been employed by the Department of Labour, where OSHA is located, since at least March 18.
The American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organisations (AFL-CIO), which is suing the Trump administration over DOGE’s access to Department of Labour records, expressed their belief that the news reports and OSHA cases in its memo purport to show “gross mistreatment and even abuse of workers” at Musk companies in five different states in an exclusive memo provided to WIRED.
The union federation claims in the memo that “every worker in America should be of concern to Musk’s record as a boss” as he tries to use DOGE to exercise “unilateral control” over the federal government.
The Department of Labour, OSHA, SpaceX, Tesla, Musk, and The Boring Company haven’t responded publicly about this ongoing issue.
A dangerous conflict of interest
Not only bureaucratic excess, but also a fundamental breakdown of the firewall separating authorities from the companies they oversee drives the key issue in the continuous debate between Elon Musk, DOGE, and OSHA. Under OSHA’s purview, the Department of Labour is currently housing DOGE employees, some of whom have been connected both personally and professionally with Musk. That by itself would set off enough sirens. The true anxiety comes from OSHA’s current investigations into Musk’s businesses: SpaceX, Tesla, and The Boring Company.
This conflict of interest targets the fundamental centre of democratic responsibility. Allowing a billionaire under investigation for multiple worker safety violations to access whistleblower material is not just a procedural breach; it undermines the principle that no one is above the law.
Former OSHA officials such as Jordan Barab and David Michaels have been clear-cut: internal OSHA records have to stay sealed from individuals under investigation. Anything less than that not only compromises the judicial system but also erodes public confidence.
The structural vulnerability is confirmed by DOGE operative Marko Elez’s read-access to several Labour Department databases, even if they are not used. Add to that his installation of Python and code-altering tools, and you are toying with illegal spying or backdoor manipulation rather than looking at naive oversight.
Whistleblowers in crosshairs
This is not theoretical if it sounds so. Not in a vacuum, but in response to hundreds of safety infractions across Musk’s operations, some leading to severe injuries, amputations, or even death, are the AFL-CIO and former OSHA officials delivering their concerns.
In 2020, OSHA fined Tesla 46 times, and there were nine violations combined for SpaceX and The Boring Company. These figures are based on accounts from actual people who sacrificed their livelihoods to speak out; they are not hypothetical.
Consider the instance of Victor Joe Gomez Sr, a certified electrician who was electrocuted to death at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Austin from incorrect electrical disconnection, a hazard OSHA had already noted as violating. Another case involved a SpaceX worker who sustained a skull fracture following an automated machinery malfunction and went into a coma.
Under such circumstances, the mere idea that Musk or his associates could follow back whistleblower identities is not only ethically repugnant; it is life-threatening. David Michaels claims that although theoretically unlawful, enforcement is weak and usually slow when reprisal against whistleblowers is taken. Once a worker’s identity is revealed, career-wise, emotionally, and perhaps physically, damage already exists.
Emphasising this threat in no less terms, Liz Shuler, President of the AFL-CIO, referred to the circumstances as an “abomination.”
Shuler has good reason for concern. Whistleblowers provide the last line of protection for worker safety in a system that already favours companies greatly.
Bureaucracy as a weapon
The Department of Government Efficiency has not openly acknowledged any active meddling in OSHA’s internal affairs. But its subdued impact is being felt in institutional silence, inexplicable inaction, and office closings. Without explanation on whether they are being combined, shrunk, or closed completely, DOGE claims to have lately revoked 17 local OSHA leases.
Meanwhile, OSHA’s National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health has not convened once this year despite scheduling two crucial meetings to address problems including heat-related occupational injuries.
These silences follow no random pattern. They are strategically important. Rebecca Reindel of the AFL-CIO claims that the Trump administration’s handling of OSHA, especially through DOGE, appears to be crippling the same mechanism supposed to safeguard workers. It is quite alarming to consider how slowing, disabling, or redirecting safety monitoring could turn bureaucracy into a weapon.
Regulatory sabotage does not necessarily show up as public firings or extensive deregulation. Sometimes it’s more subtle: closing regional offices, calling off committee meetings, or arming operators with unclear tasks and access to private networks. These sluggish poisons piecemeal destroy institutional integrity.
We enter a serious legal grey area when DOGE operator Marko Elez installs tools to change software code but claims to have never accessed important systems. The chain of command is not clear, and monitoring appears to be absent. Such uncertainty generates not only corruption but also impunity.
Protecting employees and rebuilding institutional trust
Given the stakes, the AFL-CIO’s lawsuit against the Trump administration is simply a starting point. Congressional supervision and court investigation of the reach and authority of DOGE and any related administrative agencies is absolutely needed. The curtain has to be removed on who has access to what data, how decisions are taken, and whether actual firewalls exist to guard public interest cases and whistleblowers.
This event also calls for a more general discussion on how regulatory authorities might keep their independence in the face of billionaire influence. Elon Musk is a cultural force, a policy influencer, and now, via DOGE, a quasi-government actor; he is not only a corporate billionaire. Anyone who supports democratic checks and balances should find that degree of access and leverage horrifying.
From the Boeing 737 MAX disasters, where engineers raised red flags that were disregarded, to the 2008 financial crisis, driven by lax oversight and insider immunity, history is full of cases when corporate overreach resulted in calamity. If anything, Musk’s hostile treatment of whistleblowers, threatening litigation and vowing prosecution, is a red flag that cannot be overlooked. We have seen how rapidly openness falls when the norm is reprisals.
The position of the AFL-CIO goes beyond mere union grievances. On the moral sand, it is a line. Should Musk or DOGE be let to run wild, we could find ourselves in a world where millionaires rewrite the rules in real time, whistleblowing is suicidal, and regulation is optional.
Protecting workers’ rights and safety is not a luxury; rather, it is the absolute least a society has to maintain to be civilised. As of right now, there is no proof available to the public that DOGE or Musk have obtained private OSHA documents.
However, the AFL-CIO and former OSHA managers are concerned about DOGE’s attempts to obtain access to other potentially sensitive databases at the Department of Labour and many other federal agencies.
Former OSHA deputy assistant secretary Jordan Barab, who served under President Barack Obama, said, “No company that is being cited by OSHA or investigated by OSHA should be granted access to the agency’s internal and confidential files.”
DOGE operative Marko Elez currently has read access to four record systems at the Department of Labour, including a database for tracking unemployment benefit claims and another for managing employee access to federal buildings and systems, according to a March 29 court filing by attorneys for the Trump administration in the AFL-CIO lawsuit. Elez “has not accessed any of the systems,” according to the petition, but he has installed Python and a program for altering software code at the agency.
According to the public database, OSHA has one ongoing investigation against Tesla, which means the agency has not yet issued a citation or dismissed the case. An unidentified “safety” complaint regarding a Tesla factory in Lathrop, California, prompted the opening of the case recently.
OSHA has issued 46 penalties against Tesla since April 2020 for a range of reasons, including allegedly failing workplace inspections, breaching OSHA safety laws, or causing an injury to a worker at the business. Over half of these violations are now being contested by Tesla. In the same time frame, OSHA conducted six investigations that led to violations against SpaceX and three against Musk’s tunnel construction company, the Boring Company.
According to the document, the AFL-CIO’s worry is based on almost two dozen mishaps and claimed safety issues that have been recorded at Tesla, SpaceX, and The Boring Company since 2016. Some of these incidents were the focus of recent OSHA investigations.
A qualified electrician called Victor Joe Gomez Sr was electrocuted and murdered in one instance that was reported to OSHA in 2024 after he was told to check electrical panels at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Austin, Texas, which OSHA found had not been correctly disconnected previously. Also, Tesla is actively contesting the case, so it is still open.
Fingertip amputations were the subject of two different OSHA citations at other Tesla operations. According to the final OSHA accident report, an employee at a SpaceX plant in 2022 “suffered a skull fracture and head trauma and was hospitalised in a coma for months” following what the agency described as a technical issue with a recently automated piece of machinery. SpaceX did not dispute the $18,475 fee and OSHA citation.
AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler stated that several Tesla employees have told the federation on multiple occasions that the automaker doesn’t put safety first. The AFL-CIO does not represent workers at SpaceX or Tesla, but it does collaborate with the United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW).
Debbie Berkowitz, a former chief of staff and senior adviser at OSHA under Obama, accuses Tesla of having “some serious safety hazards in their facilities.”
According to OSHA’s public database, businesses have the authority to contest a citation after it is issued, and Tesla frequently does so. As per the email, OSHA has issued violations in 46 Tesla cases over the last five years, but 27 of those cases are still pending because the automaker is aggressively contesting them with the agency.
For the same reason, one Boring Company case and two SpaceX cases are still pending. Until OSHA and the employers agree on the terms of the citation, which may include related fines and certain adjustments the company must make to improve worker safety, the cases cannot be closed.
Obama’s assistant secretary of labour for OSHA, David Michaels, told WIRED that large corporations generally don’t have a financial incentive to contest OSHA penalties because the penalties associated with them are normally only a few thousand dollars.
However, until a lawsuit is closed, a corporation is not obligated to address the precise hazard that caused an accident.
“In general, some companies may be motivated to keep cases open in order to avoid addressing these alleged problems,” Michaels said.
According to Michaels, “Some employers decide they don’t want to abate the hazard, they disagree with the citation, and they will argue the case for many, many thousands of dollars, and it will cost them far more than simply paying a small fine and abating the hazard.”
Right now, there is no proof that Musk has access to any private databases at the Department of Labour that would hold whistleblowers’ personal data. However, past administrators of OSHA claim that the agency does have records that would make whistleblowers and workers who took part in anonymous interviews with agency investigators anonymous.
According to Berkowitz, she is concerned that an individual with this kind of access could be able to identify each whistleblower who has assisted with an OSHA investigation against one of his businesses.
As stated by Michaels, there is “a very significant concern” that whistleblowers who have their identities made public will face intimidation or retaliation.
Whistleblowers expose their firms to considerable personal danger, and Shuler says that she is deeply worried that their safety and identity may be compromised.
“Regarding the checks and balances we’ve incorporated into these systems,” Shuler claims, “It’s an abomination to me. Being aware that our government enjoys trust and that we have successfully persuaded employees that their government will protect them, and now we have an unelected billionaire essentially upsetting that feeling of security.”
In recent years, Elon Musk has at least twice talked of taking revenge on those who have leaked secrets. After the material was leaked to the media in March 2025, Musk declared that he would “look forward to the prosecutions” of Pentagon employees. Musk threatened to bring legal action against staff members at X who broke their non-disclosure agreements.
It’s still uncertain what OSHA’s overall future under the Trump administration would hold. According to Rebecca Reindel, the AFL-CIO’s director of occupational safety and health and a member of OSHA’s National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety & Health since 2022, the committee should have met twice by now, but none have, she stated. Her committee was drafting regulations to stop occupational heat-related illnesses and injuries.
On a website where the organisation details the amount of money it says it has saved the federal government, DOGE says it has cancelled the leases of 17 OSHA local offices in recent weeks. OSHA and DOGE have not stated if these offices will merge with other regional offices, reduce, or completely close.
Unlike many other government agencies, DOGE does not currently appear to have planned mass terminations at OSHA.
“Massive cuts have not yet been observed. We anticipate their arrival,” Reindel concluded.