The Risks of Expanded Surveillance in Federal Workplaces: A National Security Perspective

By Tim Leogrande, BSIT, MSCP, Ed.S.

Updated 10:15 PM EDT • Sat March 8, 2025

As part of the current administration’s recent mandate that work-at-home federal employees return to the office, the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has introduced a suite of monitoring technologies designed to track digital activity, communications, and physical movements within federal government offices. While these measures are ostensibly being taken to enhance accountability and security, they also create unintended vulnerabilities that adversaries could exploit, posing serious risks to national security.

Government agencies have long relied on security monitoring to detect insider threats, enforce policies, and prevent data breaches. However, the widespread deployment of surveillance tools such as keyloggers, AI-driven sentiment analysis, and network activity tracking introduces entirely new layers of risk.

The aggregation of vast amounts of employee activity data—ranging from keystrokes and login behaviors to file access patterns and flagged communications—makes government systems an even more attractive target for hostile nation-states. A compromised surveillance infrastructure could provide adversaries with a detailed map of government operations, including classified discussions and the behavioral patterns of key personnel.

The introduction of AI-powered monitoring tools, such as Google Gemini analysis of emails and chat messages, adds another dimension of vulnerability. If adversaries were to manipulate these AI models, they could alter flagged terms, distort risk scores, or even weaponize automated decision-making to target individuals. Additionally, the scoring algorithms used by Everfox and Dtex Intercept–two other tools installed by DOGE—may flag benign behaviors as suspicious, creating an overwhelming number of false positives. This bureaucratic inefficiency could slow response times for real security threats, giving foreign adversaries a greater opportunity to exploit vulnerabilities.

<aside> 💡

Beyond the direct security implications, this surveillance-heavy environment threatens to weaken operational security and workforce trust.

</aside>

Employees who know they are being monitored at all times may hesitate to report security concerns or unethical behavior for fear that their actions will be misinterpreted or used against them. A culture of excessive monitoring often pushes individuals toward unmonitored communication channels, such as personal devices or encrypted third-party applications, which increases the risk of sensitive information being leaked or exposed to unauthorized parties.

The automated transcription and indefinite storage of federal workers’ Microsoft Teams calls and chats further complicate the situation, raising concerns about whether private or sensitive discussions could be accessed through legal mechanisms such as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

The legal and constitutional implications of these surveillance measures cannot be ignored. While federal employees work in government-owned offices, tracking their every keystroke and communication could constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The indefinite retention of digital records also creates concerns regarding how this data is used, who has access to it, and whether it could be exploited for political or retaliatory purposes.

<aside> 💡

Without clear oversight and transparency, these tools may be misused in ways that extend far beyond their original intent.

</aside>

Rather than relying on indiscriminate surveillance, federal agencies should adopt a more balanced approach to security monitoring. The collection of employee activity data should be limited to what is necessary for legitimate security purposes, avoiding the temptation to store every keystroke, message, physical movement, or login event.

Security training should take precedence over punitive monitoring, fostering a culture of responsibility rather than fear. Independent oversight and legal reviews should ensure that surveillance measures are implemented with clear accountability and respect for civil liberties. AI-powered monitoring systems must also be rigorously secured against manipulation, preventing adversaries from using them as tools for disinformation or internal disruption.

Security monitoring is essential for protecting government operations, but when applied too broadly, it becomes a liability rather than an asset. The indiscriminate use of surveillance technology not only creates new opportunities for cyber threats, but also weakens the very security culture that federal agencies like DOGE should seek to protect.

A measured, transparent, and rights-respecting approach is critical to safeguarding both national security and the integrity of the federal workforce.