Former Department of Homeland Security employee Brandon Wright made this gamble and lost, so he recently filed a lawsuit against the agency. This police chief was put on administrative leave and threatened with removal after he gave comments to a reporter in an off-the-clock Q-and-A. The issue first arose soon after Wright matched with a woman named Heidi Doe on the dating app Bumble in early January 2025. Their report on South Dakota governor Kristi Noem was particularly harsh. That has spurred a furious legal and public relations war over free speech rights.
In conclusion Wright spent eight years as the DHS chief of IT. On January 30, 2025 he was abruptly put on administrative leave. Shortly after, the agency proposed his removal for “conduct unbecoming of a federal employee.” The disciplinary action was the result of a chain of events. It all began when Wright encountered Doe the Brave, who had the audacity to suggest that Governor Noem was “insane.” On that date, over cocktails and political talk, the conversation turned to Noem.
Unbeknownst to Wright, Doe recorded their conversation, which later emerged as a 13-minute video posted on various social media platforms, including YouTube and X. The video contains a series of clips that it is now being called, out of context. This poses profound ethical problems, not least because it was filmed without his permission.
Once that video went viral, Wright promptly reported the incident to his supervisor. Sadly, he never got a response before DHS moved to discipline him. He accuses the agency of retaliating against him for his private, political speech. He claims that his remarks constitute protected speech under the First Amendment.
The lawsuit, which was filed by high-profile attorney Mark Zaid, shines a light on Wright’s claim that the DHS infringed upon his rights. Zaid emphasized 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.” He claims the successful termination was to suppress dissent in federal agencies. This decision, he argues, played into a greater overall strategy from the Trump administration.
Wright asserted that following his date with Doe, he began receiving threatening voicemails from a blocked number. This just compounded the isolation and anguish he experienced during that period.
“Mr Wright’s intended private expression of his personal opinions, especially during nonduty hours, is quintessential protected speech on a matter of public concern,” Zaid stated.
A DHS official corrected these points in response to the video and the widespread condemnation of Wright’s use of force. They reminded her that Secretary Noem had not viewed the entire video, and that they abhorred the behavior portrayed in it.
“This type of behavior will not be tolerated. This person has been placed on leave and is under investigation… The termination of the official is imminent,” the official remarked.
The DHS has argued that Wright’s actions undermine the authority of both Secretary Noem and the agency’s leadership. The official argued that if this behavior were permitted, it might open up employees to intimidation from more unruly government agency employees. He argues that it would erode any remaining respect for their agendas.
While Wright’s case proceeds, her case raises important questions about the scope of free speech for federal employees. To how they could be personally impacted when employees express opinions as private citizens on their own time. As the lawsuit progresses, it will examine whether DHS’s actions constitute a violation of constitutional rights or if they were justified in maintaining decorum among federal employees.