Boston University Employee Who Called For Death Of DOGE Team Now Under Investigation

By Emily Sturge of Campus Reform

A Boston University employee who allegedly threatened members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in a social media post is reportedly under federal investigation for potential violations of federal law.

Campus Reform recently reported that Jared May, who works as an assistant media technician at Boston University, shared a post online identifying six young members of DOGE with the caption, “Wanted for Treason, Dead or Alive.”

“We will not tolerate threats against DOGE workers or law-breaking by the disgruntled,” interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Edward R. Martin Jr. posted on X.

Under federal law, threatening government officials is a felony.

18 U.S.C. 111 states that anyone who “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes” a federal employee could be fined or face imprisonment.

Martin publicly stated, “Our initial review of the evidence presented to us indicates that certain individuals and/or groups have committed acts that appear to violate the law in targeting DOGE employees.”

“We are in contact with FBI and other law-enforcement partners to proceed rapidly. We also have our prosecutors preparing,” Martin said.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Leah B. Foley also reportedly confirmed her office is investigating the matter, according to the Boston Globe.

“We take those threats seriously,” Foley reportedly stated.

“We will pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people…We will protect DOGE and other workers no matter what,” Martin wrote in a letter to Elon Musk shared on X.

Campus Reform spoke with Ken Tashjy, who served as General Counsel for the Massachusetts Community College System for over 21 years and currently serves as a higher education attorney and consultant.

“Whether May’s post violates federal law or is considered protected speech under the First Amendment depends upon a variety of factors, including whether the threat was specific and credible, whether May intended to cause fear or harm to the DOGE employees, and whether the threat was tied to the employees’ official duties as federal workers,” Tashjy stated.

Tashjy, a former Campus Reform Higher Education Fellow, cited the following potential violations:

• Interstate Communications of Threats (18 U.S.C. § 875) – Prohibits sending threats to injure another person through electronic communication;
• Retaliation Against a Federal Official (18 U.S.C. § 1513) – Prohibits retaliation against federal employees for actions taken in the course of their official duties; or
• Encouraging or Inciting Violence (18 U.S.C. § 373) – Prohibits threats explicitly encouraging or soliciting others to commit violent acts against federal employees.

May’s social media post may also violate Boston University’s policies, which could subject him to discipline or termination.

The university Employee Handbook section titled “Professional Standards of Conduct” deems “violent behavior in any form, including threats” as “unacceptable employee conduct that have a direct bearing on the work environment and the general interests of the University.”

The code also prohibits “[i]llegal conduct occurring outside the workplace that bears upon the employee’s fitness for employment at the University” and “[a]ny action that would place the interests of an employee in conflict with the interests of Boston University.”

According to Tashjy, May’s social media post “could constitute a threat of violence in violation of BU’s Rules of Conduct.”

“His post also fails to uphold BU’s ethical standards of honesty and integrity, places his interests in conflict with the interests of the University, and raises serious questions about his fitness for continued employment. Further, based on the extensive media coverage, his actions have reflected poorly on the University,” Tashjy stated.

“Under the circumstance, adequate grounds exist to discipline Mr. May, up to and including termination,” he continued.

In a statement on behalf of Boston University, a representative said, “We are aware of a post made by an employee on his personal social media account…We do not comment on personnel matters. The views expressed do not reflect the values of Questrom School of Business,” reports Boston.com.

Tashjy explained that because Boston University is “a private institution of higher education, the First Amendment’s free speech protections do not apply to Boston University, and it has greater flexibility to discipline speech that might otherwise be protected at a public institution.”

“BU is free to discipline May for his online speech in accordance with its own policies,” he concluded.

Amid the backlash on social media and from federal prosecutors, May’s staff webpage on the university’s website has been removed.