An offhand remark about gold bars, secretly recorded, upended his life
Brady took a particular interest in the fate of billions of dollars that Congress had ordered the EPA to spend on tackling climate change. Trump had promised on the campaign trail to repeal climate programs, so the Biden administration was 'trying to get the money out as fast as possible,' Efron told his date.
Advertisement
Efron, a passionate believer in the EPA's mission 'to protect human health and the environment,' came up with an analogy to describe what was happening: The agency was a cruise ship that had hit an iceberg. It needed to launch its lifeboats — climate and clean energy projects — right away.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'It truly feels we're on the Titanic and we're throwing gold bars off the edge,' he told Brady.
Brady left after about an hour, and Efron said he barely thought about the date again — until a video of him appeared on the website of Project Veritas, a right-wing group known for using covert recordings to embarrass political opponents. Brady, who had posed as a politically liberal commercial real estate agent and recent transplant to the capital, was actually a Project Veritas operative with a hidden camera.
Advertisement
The conversation — particularly the phrase 'gold bars' — has come to haunt Efron. Conservative media and Republicans immediately trumpeted those words as supposed evidence that the Biden administration had mishandled funds.
Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, repeatedly cited the video as he worked to cancel $20 billion that the Biden administration had granted to finance projects like electric vehicle charging stations in low-income communities and installing geothermal systems to heat and cool subsidized housing.
Zeldin has blasted out media releases with headlines like 'Administrator Zeldin Terminates Biden-Harris $20B 'Gold Bar' Grants' and 'EPA Formally Refers Financial Mismanagement of $20B 'Gold Bars' to Inspector General.'
'The entire scheme, in my opinion, is criminal,' Zeldin said on Fox News in February, adding, 'We found the gold bars. We want them back.'
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin at a meeting in the White House in Washington, on April 30. Zeldin posted the video of Efron to his official X account in February, just two weeks after he was confirmed to lead the EPA
PETE MAROVICH/NYT
It would not matter that a Justice Department investigation found no evidence of criminal conduct by Biden officials or grant recipients, and that a federal judge ruled that Zeldin's team failed to prove allegations of misconduct. The administration's own lawyers acknowledged internally that the claims are misguided.
The unfortunate truth, for Efron, was that he had handed the EPA's critics a powerful political weapon, and he is still paying a personal price. Since the Project Veritas video aired — but especially since Zeldin posted it to his X account two days in a row in February, receiving almost 3 million views — he has been publicly shamed by Elon Musk, obscenely berated by anonymous callers and hauled into an interview with the FBI.
All because of an online date.
Advertisement
On a recent Thursday, Efron described his ordeal over green tea at Three Fifty Bakery & Coffee Bar in Dupont Circle. It had been months since the video came out, yet he still seemed hurt and bewildered that he could have gotten into such a mess.
'I spend every day thinking about this,' he said, his voice shaking. 'I go to bed thinking about it. I wake up thinking about it.'
He said that the excerpt Project Veritas posted made it seem as if he had some authority over the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the program that funded the clean energy projects. But he had nothing to do with grant-making decisions. His job simply involved tracking EPA-funded projects to make sure they conformed to wage requirements and other labor laws.
Efron also said he was expressing what everyone in Washington knew: that Trump intended to kill climate programs and the Biden administration was trying to save them.
'It's been used to justify actions that I view as terrible, in terms of trying to cancel grants and claw back funding, and I want to set the record straight,' Efron said. 'I want people to understand what I meant. I'd like Lee Zeldin to understand what I meant.'
Gold Bars and Lifeboats
Efron was feeling depressed about the presidential election when Brady swiped right on his Tinder profile, and he was looking forward to meeting someone who shared his politics. His profile didn't identify him as an EPA employee. But it did say that he worked on climate policy, lived in Washington and recently earned a master's degree from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs.
In retrospect, Efron said, anyone could have learned the nature of his midlevel federal job with a simple Google search. But when he matched with Brady, the idea that he could be targeted never crossed his mind.
Advertisement
Their conversation went from Tinder to text, and they agreed to meet for a drink at Licht Cafe on Nov. 20. Earlier that evening, Efron had been out at a happy hour with colleagues where they talked about how proud they were of EPA's record on addressing climate change and how they worried the Trump administration would reverse any gains.
The Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters in Washington.
MORIAH RATNER/NYT
That was when Efron first thought of the Titanic analogy. He told his colleagues that the funding for clean energy projects going to states, cities, tribes and nonprofit groups were like gold bars being tossed into lifeboats to protect some of the Biden administration's work.
'What I meant was, we were giving money to protect rural Washington from wildfire smoke, and fund a health clinic in Georgia and a community farm in Missouri and help tribal communities that are falling into the ocean in Alaska,' he said. 'Those were lifeboats.'
Efron had a drink, but Brady did not consume any alcohol. After discussing climate change, Brady asked some questions about Vice President Kamala Harris, but Efron didn't have much to say. Brady abruptly declared he had to leave.
Two weeks later, at 3:07 p.m. on Dec. 2, an email landed in Efron's inbox. 'Project Veritas intends to release a video that contains comments made by you to a Project Veritas journalist,' it read. 'Below are some of those quotes. We appreciate any consideration for comment by 8 p.m.'
He knew about Project Veritas. He felt panic, then humiliation.
The EPA press office received an identical email and request for comment. Within minutes, Efron received a call from his boss. He realized he had been set up.
Advertisement
His boss at the EPA was mostly concerned for Efron but sent the video to the agency's ethics department for review. It cleared Efron of any wrongdoing or violations.
'Instead, this situation appears to be an unfortunate reminder about the social media bubble we live in now,' Justina Fugh, director of EPA's ethics office, wrote in an email to Efron. 'Remember that my team and I are here to provide you with ethics advice when you need it. Until then, hang in there, Brent.'
He tried to hang in there. He called some close friends and then his parents in Massachusetts to tell them what happened and get their support. He strengthened the privacy settings on his social media. But Musk posted the video on X to his 221 million followers, and the onslaught came. Strangers found his cell number, though he still doesn't know how. Their voicemail messages, teeming with obscenities, called him 'scumbag' and 'American traitor.'
'We want our stolen tax dollars back, you disgusting criminal,' someone on Instagram messaged him. 'By the way, Trump is your president again.'
A month later, Efron left the EPA in January, hoping the worst was behind him.
An Interview With the Feds
'Huge news! Our awesome team @EPA just located BILLIONS of dollars worth of 'gold bars' that the Biden Admin threw 'off the titanic.''
The post on
Advertisement
🚨🚨🚨Huge news! Our awesome team
Big update coming tomorrow…
— Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin)
That brought a fresh torrent of abuse, Efron said. By that point, he had loosened the privacy settings on his LinkedIn account to look for a new job. People found him there — some not even bothering to hide their identities. Most of the attackers took aim at Efron's sexual identity.
'Any hope you had of infiltrating the government with your tyrannical and sick LGBTQ agenda is now FINISHED,' one person wrote. 'Time to ramp up that rainbow résumé.'
Then came the knocks on his door. Efron was still in bed the morning of Feb. 21 when two people from the EPA's office of the inspector general asked if they could come in to ask some questions.
'I asked them, do I have to answer them?' Efron recalled. They said he did not and left their business cards.
He spent the rest of the day finding a lawyer. Mark Zaid, who specializes in representing people who work in national security and is suing the founder of Project Veritas in connection with a different undercover video, is representing Efron pro bono.
On Feb. 24, Efron came back from a run to find more business cards in his door. This time, an FBI agent had written, 'please give me a call I would like to speak to you,' on the back.
A few days later, at Zaid's office, Efron sat for questioning. Two FBI agents were in the room. So was a prosecutor with the U.S. attorney's office. Two investigators from the EPA's inspector general's office were on speakerphone.
'On the one hand, I had nothing to hide, and I just told them the truth, but it was really scary,' he said.
'I mean, this whole thing was stemming from me saying something that's been taken of context and twisted,' he said. 'I also was scared of the exact same thing happening again.'
Feigning Amazement
The Project Veritas video of Efron fits a pattern. During the Biden administration, the outfit released a string of surreptitiously recorded videos of young, mostly male federal workers, breezily complaining about dysfunction in their departments or about policies with which they disagreed.
Most appear to be filmed in bars or restaurants. In many of the videos, a male voice can be heard behind the hidden camera, alternately gushing ('Amazing!' fawned Brady when Efron said he worked on climate change) or asking probing questions.
'Mr. Efron openly described his experience 'throwing gold bars off the Titanic' at Biden's EPA to our journalist in his own words,' Project Veritas said in a written statement. 'If he disagrees with Project Veritas' reporting, he should reflect on his own statements, as we published his words as the story.'
Zeldin's office, meanwhile, continues to maintain that Efron's 'gold bars' comment was an admission of government wrongdoing.
'This video started a public discourse about very real issues with the way the Biden administration lit tens of billions of tax dollars on fire,' his spokesperson, Molly Vaseliou, said in a statement. The administrator continues to maintain his zero tolerance policy for waste and abuse."
Seeking a New Start
Efron's D.C. apartment lease expired recently, and he is staying with friends until he figures out his next steps. He still has not found work and thinks employers fear they could become a target of the Trump administration if they hire him.
Zaid said Efron has few concrete ways to hold Project Veritas accountable for the disruption in his life. In Washington, D.C., it is legal for a person to record their own conversation with someone else without consent.
Efron has tentatively returned to dating apps. But background searches are now a must, and he tends to stick to meeting people with whom he has friends in common.
He said he regrets his choice of words in the Project Veritas video but will not apologize for sharing his personal political opinions during what he thought was a private moment.
'I have so much regret that my words have been twisted to be used to go after all these programs as a sort of justification,' he said. 'I regret that I was not careful enough in vetting who I was talking to, and shouldn't have been talking about work. But I also think that what I said was something I should have been allowed to say.'
This article originally appeared in
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
19 minutes ago
- Washington Post
National pride in the U.S. sees dramatic decline, Gallup survey finds
Just 58 percent of adults in the United States are 'extremely' or 'very' proud to be American, according to a Gallup poll released this week — the lowest level recorded by the company in the more than two decades since it started including the question in surveys. The dramatic decline was largely driven by Democrats, while most Republicans had strong feelings of national pride, according to the poll published Monday — an indicator of the deepening partisan divide in the U.S. Younger Americans, particularly Gen Z, are also less likely to be proud of their country compared with previous generations.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's how Trump's megabill will affect you
Seniors, students, taxpayers, children, parents, low-income Americans and just about everyone else will be affected by the massive tax and spending bill being hashed out in real time on Capitol Hill. Republicans call it President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' but there have been several versions. The latest passed the Senate on Tuesday with Vice President JD Vance's tie-breaking vote. Senate Republicans' version of the bill differs in key ways from what the House passed in May. Both chambers will ultimately have to pass the same version to send the package to Trump's desk by his desired July Fourth deadline. But the general contours of the massive piece of legislation are known. It extends Trump's first-term tax cuts, funds his vision for a border wall, and offsets some of that revenue loss and additional spending with cuts to federal support for the social safety net that helps Americans afford food and health insurance. Here's what we know about how the Senate bill will affect … For many Medicaid enrollees, the biggest impact would be the new work requirement. Certain able-bodied Americans ages 19 to 64 who are enrolled through the Medicaid expansion would have to work, volunteer, attend school or participate in job training at least 80 hours a month. The mandate would also apply to parents of children ages 14 and older. Read more from Tami Luhby here. In addition, expansion enrollees would have their eligibility reviewed more frequently and would have to pay up to $35 for certain care. Overall, Medicaid enrollees could face other changes, since states would receive less federal funding for the program. This could force some states to eliminate certain benefits or tighten enrollment, among other alterations. Plus, many enrollees would face more paperwork and verification requirements, which could make it harder for some to apply for and maintain their benefits. The bill would delay the implementation of some provisions in two Biden administration rules aimed at streamlining enrollment and renewing coverage. Nearly 12 million more people would be uninsured in 2034, with many of them losing coverage because of the Medicaid provisions in the bill, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published Sunday, before subsequent changes to the bill that the Senate ultimately passed. More Americans who receive food stamps would have to work to keep their benefits. The bill would broaden the existing work mandate to enrollees ages 55 to 64 and parents of children ages 14 and older, as well as to veterans, former foster youth and people experiencing homelessness. Enrollees in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, the formal name for food stamps, may also face other changes: Many states would also have to cover part of the benefit costs for the first time and pay more of the administrative costs, both of which may force them to tighten benefits, cut eligibility or make other alterations, including potentially withdrawing from the safety-net program. Also, the growth of food stamp benefits would be limited in the future. Read more from Tami about an earlier iteration of the Senate bill's food stamp changes here. Americans looking for coverage on the Obamacare exchanges could have a tougher time enrolling in plans and receiving federal subsidies to help pay their premiums. The bill would increase verification requirements and would effectively end automatic reenrollment. The CBO estimates that millions of people would lose their Obamacare coverage. Just because you aren't on Medicaid doesn't mean your health care wouldn't be affected by the bill. Hospitals are warning that the steep cuts to Medicaid could force some hospitals — particularly in rural locations — to close their doors, limit services and reduce staff. 'The real-life consequences of these reductions will result in irreparable harm to access to care for all Americans,' Rick Pollack, CEO of the American Hospital Association, wrote in a letter to senators Sunday. The bill could also affect those who don't receive food stamps. A trade group for independent grocers warned that cutting federal support for the program could hurt local food retailers, which increase access to groceries, provide jobs and help local economies — particularly in rural and underserved areas. State lawmakers would likely have to make tough decisions since they would face massive reductions in federal support for Medicaid and food stamps. They could try to limit the cost of the programs by cutting benefits or eligibility, but they might also decide to try to save money in other areas, such as education or infrastructure. The bill would reduce the amount of taxes that state and local governments can levy on providers, notably hospitals, which is a key source of funding for states. Also, it would require many states to start paying for part of the food stamp benefits and shoulder more of the administrative costs. Many taxpayers would continue to benefit from the array of individual income tax cuts from the 2017 Trump tax package that are set to expire at year's end. The current bill would permanently extend essentially all those tax breaks, including the lower individual rates and a near-doubling of the standard deduction. But a lot of those taxpayers may not notice this tax relief because it would be a continuation of provisions that have been in place since the 2017 law was enacted. Some, however, may benefit from the larger child tax credit and temporary increase in the cap on state and local tax deductions, as well as other new tax breaks in the bill. Households would see their taxes reduced by $2,900, on average, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis of the tax provisions in the bill. But that figure varies widely depending on taxpayers' income. More on that later. Senior citizens would receive a $6,000 boost to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028. The benefit would start to phase out for individuals with incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with incomes double that amount. This tax break is in lieu of Trump's campaign promise to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. Some lower-income seniors enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid, however, could be affected by the Medicaid cuts in the bill. They could lose their Medicaid coverage, which helps them cover their Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs. They could also lose benefits they receive through Medicaid, such as long-term care and dental services. New caps would be placed on the amount students can borrow in federal student loans for graduate school and how much parents can borrow to help pay students' tuition. There would be fewer opportunities for deferments or forbearance. There would also be limits on lending for part-time students and a much more limited set of repayment options, veering away from the loan forgiveness programs of the Biden era. A primary focus of the bill is tax cuts, but not everyone who pays taxes will pay less. Private universities are generally tax-exempt, although they do pay a 1.4% tax on income from their endowments. This bill would jack up that endowment income tax to a top rate of 8% for colleges whose endowments exceed $2 million per enrolled student. We're talking about schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT and Princeton. Good news for anyone buying a new American-made car with a loan: This bill will allow up to $10,000 in interest to be deducted from taxable income. Bad news for anyone wanting to buy an electric vehicle: EV tax credits, which ranged up to $7,500 and were enacted by Democrats under President Joe Biden, would end at the end of September. They had been scheduled to last through 2032. Many parents would get a larger tax break: The legislation would permanently beef up the child tax credit to $2,200 per kid, up from the current $2,000. Single parents earning up to $200,000 and married couples earning up to $400,000 would qualify. The credit would phase out for those with higher incomes. However, other parents could lose out on government assistance since many of those with children ages 14 and older would have to work to continue receiving Medicaid and food stamps. In a three-year pilot program, every American baby born between 2025 and 2028 would get a $1,000 nest egg from the government to be invested in an index fund. Parents could then add $5,000 each year to those accounts and watch the interest grow during childhood. No deductions would be allowed until the child turns 18. Originally called a 'baby bonus,' or a 'MAGA account,' the name was changed to 'Trump accounts' over the course of this year. It bears some similarities to proposals put forward by Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker. Read more from CNN's Jeanne Sahadi. Many workers who receive tips or overtime compensation would get a tax break through 2028. Employees who work in jobs that traditionally receive tips could deduct up to $25,000 in tip income from their federal income taxes, while workers who receive overtime could deduct up to $12,500 of that extra pay. Highly compensated individuals who make more than $160,000 in 2025 would not qualify. The bill speeds up the end of tax incentives for renewable energy projects to 2027. The bill would limit eligibility for federal benefits — including food stamps, Medicaid, Affordable Care Act premium subsidies and Medicare — to a smaller set of noncitizens. Some immigrants, such as refugees, asylees and victims of domestic violence and sex trafficking, would no longer qualify. In addition, immigrants would have to pay new or higher fees to apply for various programs, including asylum, work authorization, humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status, as well as for most immigration court filings. Wealthy Americans would benefit far more from the tax package than those lower on the income scale, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis of the Senate bill. While all households would see their taxes reduced, some 60% of the benefits would go to those making $217,000 or more (the top 20%). These folks would receive an average tax cut of $12,500, or 3.4% of their after-tax income, in 2026, the analysis found. But the lowest-income households, who earn about $35,000 or less, would receive an average tax cut of only $150, less than 1% of their after-tax income. Middle-income households would see their taxes reduced by about $1,800, or 2.3% of their after-tax income, on average. This analysis does not take into account the historic cuts to the nation's safety-net program, which would hurt lower-income Americans. They would see their income reduced after factoring in the changes to Medicaid and food stamps, according to a report from the Budget Lab at Yale. It's hard to believe, but according to a Congressional Research Service report, thousands of people who made $1 million or more claimed unemployment benefits in 2021 and 2022. This bill puts an end to that. Musk is furious about the bill and howling about it on social media. Not only does he disagree with the deficit-exploding tax cuts, he would also prefer more spending cuts. The Tesla CEO also vehemently opposes the abrupt end to EV tax credits. 'It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future,' he wrote on X. He predicted 'political suicide' for Republicans if they turn this bill into law. The bill would increase the deficit by $3.3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office report published Sunday. Republicans have embraced a budget gimmick to argue the impact of the bill is much smaller. But nobody should expect the roughly $36 trillion national debt to shrink as a result of the package. The legislation would also raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion to allow the Treasury Department to borrow more to pay the bills that have already been incurred. Many Americans could feel the consequences of the nation's ever-growing debt in their wallets. The bill would increase interest rates, according to a CBO analysis of the House version. That could make mortgages, car loans and credit card payments more expensive. Read more from CNN's Matt Egan here. The money Trump could not secure for a border wall during his first term is in this bill. It allocates $46.5 billion for border wall construction and $45 billion for the detention of undocumented people apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
33 minutes ago
Trump says the GOP mega bill will eliminate taxes on Social Security. It does not.
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump keeps saying that Republicans' mega tax and spending cut legislation will eliminate taxes on federal Social Security benefits. It does not. At best, Trump's 'no tax on Social Security' claim exaggerates the benefits to seniors if either the House or Senate-passed proposals is signed into law. Here's a look at Trump's recent statements, and what the proposals would — or would not — do. Trump repeatedly told voters during his 2024 campaign that he would eliminate taxes on Social Security. As his massive legislative package has moved through Congress, the Republican president has claimed that's what the bill would do. Trump said on a recent appearance on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures" that the bill includes 'no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime.' But instead of eliminating the tax, the Senate and House have each passed their own versions of a temporary tax deduction for seniors aged 65 and over, which applies to all income — not just Social Security. And it turns out not all Social Security beneficiaries will be able to claim the deduction. Those who won't be able to do so include the lowest-income seniors who already don't pay taxes on Social Security, those who choose to claim their benefits before they reach age 65 and those above a defined income threshold. The Senate proposal includes a temporary $6,000 deduction for seniors over the age of 65, contrasted with the House proposal, which includes a temporary deduction of $4,000. The Senate proposal approved Tuesday would eliminate Social Security tax liability for seniors with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 or less or $150,000 if filing as a married couple. If passed into law, the tax deduction would last four years, from 2025 to 2029. The deductions phase out as income increases. Touting a new Council of Economic Advisers analysis, the White House said Tuesday that '88% of all seniors who receive Social Security — will pay NO TAX on their Social Security benefits," going on to say that the Senate proposal's $6,000 senior deduction 'is estimated to benefit 33.9 million seniors, including seniors not claiming Social Security. The deduction yields an average increase in after-tax income of $670 per senior who benefits from it.' Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation think tank, said conflating the tax deduction with a claim that there will be no tax on Social Security could end up confusing and angering a lot of seniors who will expect to not pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. 'While the deduction does provide some relief for seniors, it's far from completely repealing the tax on their benefits,' Watson said. The cost of actually eliminating the tax on Social Security would have massive impacts on the economy. University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that eliminating income taxes on Social Security benefits 'would reduce revenues by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and increase federal debt by 7 percent by 2054" and speed up the projected depletion date of the Social Security Trust Fund from 2034 to 2032. Discussions over taxes on Social Security are just part of the overall bill, which is estimated in its Senate version to increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Administration officials have said the cost of the tax bill would be offset by tariff income. Recently, the CBO separately estimated that Trump's sweeping tariff plan would cut deficits by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period while shrinking the economy, raising the inflation rate and reducing the purchasing power of households overall.
