Yep, headline doesn't say it is his current computer or anything, just that his computer was infected. It would be clickbait if it said his current computer is actively infected. Less clickbait than now if it said one of his computers appears to have been infected at some point.
Cannot tell if it's sarcasm or not. Obviously everyone who reads the headline assumes it's his current computer, and it had some, uh, consequences. That's why they click. That's what makes it clickbait. Nobody would care otherwise.
(Also, if you are willing to be pointlessly formal, it goes in both directions, since it can be argued that a computer, which belongs to a person, who in the future will become DOGE's software engineer, but hasn't become yet, also formally isn't a "DOGE software engineer’s computer".)
As long as it's a work computer, what does it matter if it's his current computer or not? Remember that we're talking about an infostealer, it got his credentials and "that's it" (that's gravely serious).
Wouldn't the assumption be that some percentage of government workers have infostealers on their computers? The track record of these people is not good, pretty much since we've had the internet there have been a steady stream of minor-to-moderate scandals where information gets to places that it shouldn't be.
This might just be selection bias because there is a large crowd of angry people looking for things to fling at DOGE.
If there's bias, I think it comes from people being concerned that there are people coming into various govt. offices, demanding and receiving write/read, non-logging accounts on systems containing sensitive information. The access DOGE staffers are being granted absolutely warrants extra scrutiny of their conduct and security practices.
If his accounts were compromised after the computer was (as article indicates), people would still care. It included Greenfield too, so potentially has password reuse risk.
