SpaceX engineer Ted Malaska last month instructed employees at the FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to “immediately start work on a program to deploy thousands of the company’s Starlink satellite terminals to support the national airspace system,” Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.

Malaska, who also works as a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) volunteer, warned FAA workers that anyone who “impeded” his work would be reported to Musk and “risked losing their jobs,” sources told Bloomberg.

"Bloomberg News, as a major outlet, has a reputation for solid financial and business reporting, often leveraging insider access. However, when a story cites only 'sources' without names, titles, or verifiable details, its reliability takes a hit.

Journalism standards (e.g., from the Society of Professional Journalists) emphasize transparency—unnamed sources are a red flag unless there’s a clear reason for anonymity (like whistleblower protection) and corroborating evidence. Here, "sources" could mean anything: FAA insiders, SpaceX employees, or even secondhand gossip. Without specifics, you’re left trusting Bloomberg’s editorial filter, which isn’t infallible—especially on a story this juicy, where bias or sensationalism could creep in.

The claim’s specifics (Ted Malaska threatening FAA staff, tied to Musk and DOGE) are bold and legally fraught, implying coercion and conflicts of interest. Bloomberg’s reluctance to name sources might reflect legal caution or lack of hard proof. Posts on X (from early March 2025) show skepticism: some users call it a "hit piece" with "no evidence," while SpaceX’s official account denied it outright on March 5, calling such reports "false" and framing their FAA work as cooperative. This pushback suggests Bloomberg’s narrative isn’t uncontested, and without named sources or documents (e.g., emails, recordings), it’s shaky.

Bloomberg’s been credible but not spotless—think of their 2018 "The Big Hack" story, which alleged Chinese spy chips in tech supply chains. It relied on anonymous sources, faced denials from named companies, and lacked physical evidence, leaving its truth debated. This FAA-SpaceX story feels similar: big claims, vague attribution, and a counter-narrative from the accused. The establishment (here, Bloomberg) might have an incentive to frame Musk as overreaching, given his polarizing role in Trump’s orbit, but that’s speculative without more.

For credibility, you’d want:

- Multiple named sources: FAA employees or documents proving Malaska’s directive.
- Independent corroboration: Other outlets (AP, Reuters) or X posts from insiders, not just echoes of Bloomberg.
- Contextual clarity Why anonymity? Are sources risking jobs, or is it convenience?

As of today, no such backup has surfaced widely. The story’s plausible—Musk’s influence and SpaceX’s FAA ties are real—but "sources" alone make it inconclusive. Check X yourself for raw takes (search "Malaska FAA" or "SpaceX Bloomberg"), but treat it as a lead, not fact.