Musk aides got accounts on classified system with US nuclear secrets: sources
WASHINGTON − Luke Farritor and Adam Ramada, two Elon Musk aides who worked under his Department of Government Efficiency, have accounts on a sensitive National Nuclear Security Administration network holding tightly guarded information about the design and vulnerabilities of U.S. nuclear weapons, according to two people with knowledge of their access.
Farritor's and Ramada's names are listed on a sensitive network at the agency, which oversees the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons, the sources told USA TODAY. They spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.
Neither of the two Musk aides − a former SpaceX intern and a Miami investor − appears to have a background in nuclear weapons.
More: Elon Musk talks Lincoln Bedroom stays, late-night ice cream as he steps back from DOGE
More: Price of US nuclear weapons jumps 25% to nearly $1 trillion by 2034, budget office says
Ben Dietderich, chief spokesperson for the Department of Energy, said DOGE aides had never had access to the system. Farritor and Ramada's accounts on the classified system were first reported by NPR.
Users need to have a top-secret security clearance of the highest level possible at the Energy Department to access the network, according to agency rules for handling classified information. The network transmits highly classified nuclear information, including how nuclear weapons are designed and function, and vulnerabilities they may have.
Some information on the server could be used to help build a "dirty bomb" – a conventional bomb loaded with radioactive material.
More: Exclusive: DOGE staffer, 'Big Balls', provided tech support to cybercrime ring, records show
The presence of the two aides' names in the network does not mean they have access to everything it contains – users still need to be granted access to specific folders within it, the sources said.
"This is a highly sensitive agency, maybe one of the most sensitive in the entire government," said Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow the Brookings Institution. "There are security concerns in every piece of the government due to how DOGE came in and took over."
The Trump administration – with Musk and his aides as the tip of the spear – have roiled the federal government with mass layoffs and demands for access to sensitive information at agencies including the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and the National Labor Relations Board.
The DOGE push for access to sensitive information "is a bigger story than the firing of civil servants because it endangers all Americans," said Kamarck, who led an initiative that shrunk the federal government by 400,000 jobs during the Clinton administration.
More: Trump nukes nominee questioned on DOGE cuts, nuclear weapons testing
Amid the purge, the Trump administration laid off more than 300 probationary NNSA employees, only to backpedal and bring almost all of them back days later.
Email addresses under the names of the two Musk aides appeared at other agencies months ago, as DOGE made a sweeping effort to dismantle much of the federal government.
More: How Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has dominated Trump's agenda
Farritor, a 23-year-old former SpaceX intern and member of a fellowship for college dropouts created by tech billionaire Peter Thiel, was also given access to high-level systems at the U.S. Agency for International Development in early February, according to the New York Times. He was listed as the "executive engineer" in the secretary of Health and Human Services' office, the Times also reported.
The Trump administration later dismantled USAID and fired almost all of its employees.
Ramada is a former Miami venture capitalist. He, Farritor and Ryan Riedel, recently listed as a SpaceX employee, were installed at the Department of Energy, which encompasses the NNSA, in February, Politico reported.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: DOGE staff got accounts on system holding nuclear secrets
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Rep. Greg Steube says passing Trump megabill in the House will likely ‘be a challenge'
Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) said on Monday passing President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in the House will likely 'be a challenge.' 'I do think you're gonna have some challenges on the House side. We can only lose three votes,' Steube told NewsNation's Blake Burman on 'The Hill.' 'You've got 218 you got to get to, we can only lose three, if we lose four the bill's dead, and you've got things in here that moderates don't like, and you've got things in here that conservatives don't like. So, it is certainly going to be a challenge.' House moderate Republicans and hard-line conservatives have recently expressed rising opposition to the Senate's version of the 'big, beautiful bill' only days before the lower chamber is set to consider the legislation. Democrats have already expressed their own vehement distaste for the bill, with members like Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) calling it a 'big bad betrayal bill' and Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) saying it is an 'evil bill.' 'If Republicans pass this big bad betrayal bill, they are quite literally ensuring that more poor Americans will DIE so that billionaires and giant corporations can get a tax cut,' Jayapal said in a post on the social platform X Monday. Former close Trump ally Elon Musk said Monday he would support primary challengers to any Republicans who backed Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!' Musk said on X.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats fail to overturn ruling that tax cuts in GOP megabill don't add to deficit
The Senate voted along party lines Monday that making the expiring 2017 tax cuts permanent as part of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' could be scored as deficit neutral and therefore comply with the Byrd Rule, allowing the bill to pass with a simple-majority vote. Democrats failed to defeat the ruling by the Senate chair, which Republicans control, that the chamber's 940-page One Big, Beautiful Bill Act does not violate the 1974 Congressional Budget Act by using a controversial 'current policy' baseline to score the extension of President Trump's expiring tax cuts as not adding to the deficit. If the tax portion of the bill were scored on a 'current law' baseline, which assumes the 2017 Trump tax cuts would expire at the end of 2025, then it would add an estimated $3.5 trillion to federal deficits between 2025-34 and would add to deficits after 2034 — beyond the 10-year budget window allowed by the Byrd Rule. Scored this way, the Republican bill would fail the rule, which governs what legislation is eligible to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote on the reconciliation fast track, and Republicans would be forced to rewrite large parts of the measure. But when scored with a 'current policy' baseline, the Congressional Budget Office projects the tax cuts in the Finance Committee's section of the bill would increase deficits by not more than $1.5 trillion between 2025-34 and would not increase on-budget deficits after 2034. Democrats argued a current policy baseline had never been used before in a budget reconciliation bill, and had never been used to score an extension of expiring tax cuts as not adding to future deficits, and therefore was not in compliance with the Senate's Byrd Rule. And Democrats highlighted over the weekend that most of the Republican reconciliation package uses a 'current law' baseline to project the cost of the legislation. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) accused Republicans of 'deploying fake math and budgetary hocus-pocus to make it seem like their billionaire giveaways don't cost anything.' Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) accused Republicans of 'going nuclear' to blow up the Senate rules so they can make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent. 'This is the nuclear option. It's just hidden behind a whole lot of Washington, D.C., lingo,' Wyden said on the floor. Wyden pointed out through a parliamentary inquiry that the Finance portion of the bill used two different baselines, current policy and current law. Senate Democrats had tried to schedule a meeting with Republican Budget Committee staff and with the parliamentarian to discuss whether using a current policy baseline violated Senate precedent and the Byrd Rule, but Republicans 'flat-out refused' to participate in such a meeting, according to a person familiar with the conversations. Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday morning that Republicans are not overruling the parliamentarian and asserted the parliamentarian has said it is up to him as Budget chair to set the baseline. And he argued Democrats in the past have supported the use of a current policy baseline to project the cost of legislation, although it hasn't been done before for a budget reconciliation package. He noted former Democratic Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (N.D.) used a current policy baseline for a past farm bill. Republicans also point out former President Obama's budget office supported using a current policy baseline to score the extension of the expiring tax cuts from the George W. Bush era at the end of 2012. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said on the floor Monday that former Obama Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jeff Zients supported using the current policy baseline for the 2012 fiscal cliff deal. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Hundreds of National Guard forces deployed to L.A. by Trump could be sent to wildfire duty
Why is Trump allowed to keep the National Guard in L.A.? A military commander has discussed shifting some California National Guard troops away from the Trump administration's weekslong deployment to deal with protests in Los Angeles so they can help fight wildfires, two U.S. officials told CBS News. Gen. Gregory Guillot, the leader of U.S. Northern Command, made the request to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, proposing that 200 out of roughly 4,000 California National Guard members be moved from Los Angeles to wildfire duty elsewhere in California. The request to shift some troops to wildfire duty was first reported by The Associated Press. The purpose of the possible move is to help prepare for wildfire season, one U.S. official said. The other official said they could be placed on standby to respond to wildfires. Wildfires can happen at any time of year in California, but they usually peak in the summer and fall. The state expects an "early and active season" this year, with above-average activity in July and August, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire. The Los Angeles deployment has been controversial and subject to legal challenges. President Trump called up around 4,000 Guard members — and deployed around 700 Marines — over California Gov. Gavin Newsom's objections, moves Mr. Trump argued were necessary to protect federal buildings and immigration agents from chaotic protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Newsom argued the deployment was illegal and unnecessary. When Mr. Trump initially called up the California National Guard to deal with protests, the state had warned the move could interfere with its wildfire response. The state relies on Guard forces to supplement crews from Cal Fire — and as wildfires become more frequent and severe, state officials have said more resources are needed. Newsom's office said last week the Guard's firefighting force was only at 40% capacity due to the Los Angeles deployment. "This deployment comes when California is in the midst of peak wildfire season for both Northern and Southern California and may need to rely on their crucial support," the state of California wrote in a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the deployment. A federal district court judge initially sided with the state in its lawsuit, but a panel of appellate court judges paused that ruling, allowing Mr. Trump to maintain control of the Guard. The troops were shifted to federal service earlier this month under a law known as Title 10, which lets the president call up National Guard forces during a "rebellion" or if "the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The Trump administration argued those conditions were met due to threats of violence against immigration agents who carried out arrests in the Los Angeles area. Newsom objected to the move, and the state quickly filed a lawsuit calling it a "power grab." The state argued that under the law cited by the administration, Mr. Trump does not have the legal authority to call up the Guard without permission from the governor. A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ultimately sided with the Trump administration, allowing troops to remain in Los Angeles while the state's lawsuit is heard. The court wrote that Mr. Trump most likely "lawfully exercised his statutory authority" to federalize the Guard, and that the law "does not give governors any veto power."