The description above was talking about an investigation.

I think he said both of the things you listed. How do we interpret saying both?

The thing he didn't do was separate, saying much about how dangerous it was.

Because why is the contractor’s health or wellbeing a concern here at all? Especially right at the beginning when no one has even said/done anything?

If you answer that question considering that corruption may indeed be involved, the answer is quite obvious no?

So the reason to think corruption is that there's no other reason to say that?

Well that's not true. Incorrectly blaming a particular company in the heat of the moment could lead to harm or harassment, and it's good to remind people to wait for a real investigation. The last thing the DOT wants at that point is even more avoidable mistakes.

And if it was motivated by corruption that statement seems like a bad idea. It draws a lot of attention to that specific contractor while telling people to wait for the investigation. If they are at fault, that extra attention is bad for them in the long run.

It’s this kind of willful ignorance of the signals put in front of people that leads to Trump.

There is zero legitimate reason for the DOT to try to protect the contractor in this situation.

I think "wait to figure out whose fault it was" is a reasonable level of protection for everyone involved.

It easily could have been a different contractor, or even not a contractor.