'Free speech' | Homeland Security sued for sacking worker who criticized leader in secret recording

A former Department of Homeland Security employee is suing the agency, alleging his recent firing violated First Amendment protections after secretly recorded comments about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem surfaced online.

Brandon Wright, who spent eight years in DHS information technology, alleges in a federal complaint that his dismissal followed an encounter with a woman he met on dating app Bumble who covertly recorded their conversation and then shared the footage with far-right agitator James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, which uses edited videos and information gathering techniques to attack mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.

DHS placed Wright on administrative leave in January 2025 after the video circulated and removed him from federal service in early January 2026 for “conduct unbecoming of a federal employee” tied to his off-duty comments about Noem, according to the lawsuit.

Recorded comments trigger political and legal fallout

Wright’s suit describes a date arranged through Bumble with a woman identified as “Heidi Doe,” whom he alleges steered conversation toward politics, remarked that she found Noem “crazy” and recorded him without consent. He claims Doe’s actions aligned with O’Keefe Media Group, though neither O’Keefe nor OMG are defendants.

Wright asserts he later received anonymous messages warning he would become “famous” and lose his job, followed by a video edited with commentary from O’Keefe and published across platforms including YouTube and X. An accompanying article claimed DHS placed him on leave pending investigation.

The complaint, filed by attorney Mark Zaid, argues that DHS retaliated for protected political speech made during off-duty hours, violating constitutional rights to speak “on matters of public concern.”

Zaid said the case reflects efforts by the Trump administration to stamp out dissent, arguing that “the first amendment permits individuals to hold and express opinions that might be critical of the US Government, even when that individual might be a federal employee.”

Off-duty conduct, reputational risk and politics

The dispute raises questions about how far disciplinary policies can reach into off-duty speech, especially when political content becomes intertwined with reputational risk. Wright contends that his remarks were private expression unrelated to work duties and that firing him signals that dissenting views are incompatible with federal employment.

DHS, Doe and Noem are named as defendants and did not comment at the time of filing. The complaint seeks reinstatement and relief based on First Amendment protections.