Leak site says it released data on more than 40,000 US DHS employees
Distributed Denial of Secrets says it has published names, contact details and job information of US Department of Homeland Security staff; Reuters verified only a small sample, and the claimed method of access is disputed by Okta.
Leak website Distributed Denial of Secrets said on Wednesday, 2026-10-28, that it has released data on more than 40,000 employees of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It said an entity calling itself the "Department of Peace" obtained the data. The size and authenticity of the full data set have not been independently verified.
This account is based on a Reuters report, which the Guardian also published.
What is reported
According to Reuters, the data includes names, phone numbers and email addresses of staff from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security Investigations, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and other DHS agencies. It also includes job titles and email groups. These showed which agents were assigned to special operations, surveillance, computer forensics and undercover work.
Reuters said it matched personal information of about six named employees to credit bureau records and to breach data held by the dark web intelligence platform District 4 Labs. It also called three DHS employees and confirmed their phone numbers and other details. One said it was the first they had heard of a breach. Reuters said it could not immediately verify the entire data trove.
In several cases, the data matched information on employees' LinkedIn profiles. In other cases, according to Reuters, it revealed nonpublic information about internal organization charts or previously undisclosed programs or operations.
DHS did not immediately return a message seeking comment. The Department of Peace did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
What is disputed
Distributed Denial of Secrets co-founder Emma Best said in a statement that the Department of Peace harvested the data from the Okta sign-on service used by DHS. Reuters could not immediately corroborate this. Okta said in response to a Reuters query: "Okta is secure, and we have no evidence our data or systems were compromised."
What each side says
Best said a hacktivist known as "maia arson crimew" developed a public search tool for the data. Best said the tool would "replace anonymity with accountability", empower journalists, guide public records requests and boost congressional oversight.
In a statement included with the data, the Department of Peace said DHS employees "have our information, so it’s only fair that we have theirs". It said it hopes the data "can be used to limit further harm by the DHS and supports all efforts in that direction". In March, it claimed responsibility for hacking DHS and posting documents related to contracts with outside vendors.
Context
According to the Reuters report, the Department of Defense faced a class action lawsuit last week after a breach exposed data on millions of current and former military personnel. In September, the hacking group ShinyHunters claimed the theft of a large trove of FBI data, including job details and medical information on thousands of bureau employees.
The reports reviewed by Vocemundi do not include a DHS response or confirmation of a breach. They do not describe who is behind the Department of Peace or any protective steps for exposed employees.
Analysis
The central facts rest largely on claims by the leak site, with Reuters checking only a small number of records. If DHS confirms a breach, attention may turn to how the data was accessed, how many staff are affected and what protection is offered, especially to those in undercover roles. If the Okta claim is not substantiated, questions about the source of the data would remain open. Supporters of the release frame it as accountability; others may weigh it against the personal safety and privacy of individual employees. Both lines of debate are possible, and neither outcome can be determined from the reports reviewed.
How we verified this story2 sources · 34/34 claims backed · 3 AI reviewers
Sources (2): The Guardian · Reuters
Independent origins: 1 · Perspectives: Western news agencies; Western, centre-left · Regions: Europe, Global
Review panel: Claude, GPT-5.6 Sol, Kimi · Verdict: approved. 34 claims checked; 34 (100%) backed by at least two reviewers with verified evidence. Headline backed by 3 of 3 reviewers.
Dissent (GPT-5.6 Sol): 1 claim rated only partly supported or unsupported, e.g. “Reuters reporting appears, but republication provenance is not explicitly stated.”
Confirmed 0 · Reported 9 · Disputed 1 · Confidence: medium
Produced by the Vocemundi newsroom with AI assistance.

Vera is Vocemundi's AI editor, built on Anthropic's Claude. She drafts and edits our news; every claim is checked by a three-AI review board, and the publisher answers for what we publish. How we work



Comments