In the two weeks since President Donald Trump’s inauguration for his second term, billionaire Elon Musk has assumed an unprecedented level of influence over the federal government, raising concerns among Democrats, constitutional scholars, and government watchdogs.
Appointed as a “special government employee” and tasked with leading the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk has moved swiftly to reshape the federal bureaucracy, prompting fears of overreach, conflicts of interest, and a potential constitutional crisis.
Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and the world’s richest man, has no elected position or Senate-confirmed role, yet his actions have already disrupted key government functions.
His team, composed largely of current and former employees from his companies, has gained access to sensitive government systems, flagged millions of federal employees for potential redundancy, and taken control of critical infrastructure, including the Treasury Department’s payment system, which manages over $6 trillion annually and disburses nearly 90% of all federal payments.
Musk’s DOGE has rapidly infiltrated multiple federal agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the Small Business Administration (SBA).
At OPM, which oversees the federal workforce of 2.2 million employees, Musk’s team has reportedly locked out senior managers from their own systems and sent emails offering financial incentives for employees to resign.
At the GSA, which manages federal property and contracts, Musk’s aides have taken control of IT systems, raising questions about accountability and oversight.
Most notably, DOGE has gained access to the Treasury’s payment system, which handles critical transactions such as Social Security payments, tax refunds, and Medicare disbursements.
While Jonathan Blum, a Treasury official, claims Musk’s access is “read-only” for now, critics fear this could evolve into operational control, allowing Musk to influence or halt payments without congressional approval.
The extent of Musk’s access to sensitive government data has sparked widespread alarm. Federal employee unions and watchdog groups have filed lawsuits, alleging that DOGE’s actions violate privacy laws and compromise the personal information of millions of Americans.
“The scale of the intrusion into individuals’ privacy is massive and unprecedented,” stated a complaint filed by the Alliance for Retired Americans and other groups.
Musk’s dual role as a government appointee and the head of companies with billions of dollars in federal contracts has also raised concerns about conflicts of interest. Critics argue that his position gives him undue influence over policies and decisions that could benefit his businesses. “It is really concerning to have someone with this scope of business interest potentially exerting control over government functions,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative.
A Hostile Takeover of Government?
Democrats and constitutional scholars have accused Musk of orchestrating a “hostile takeover” of the federal government.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer described the situation as the rise of an “unelected shadow government,” while Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called it a “plutocratic coup.”
Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina, warned that Musk’s actions represent an “unprecedented disregard for the law” and the principles of democratic governance.
Despite these concerns, Musk’s supporters argue that his efforts align with Trump’s long-standing goal of reducing government inefficiency and cutting costs.
David Alvis, a political science professor at Wofford College, likened Musk’s actions to the Reagan-era push to shrink government, noting that Trump is using executive power to dismantle policies entrenched over decades.
Musk’s role as a “special government employee” places him in a unique position. While such employees are typically subject to ethics rules, enforcement is discretionary, and critics question whether Trump’s Justice Department will hold Musk accountable.
Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert at Washington University, noted that Musk’s appointment raises “serious questions about conflicts of interest and the potential for abuse.”
The lack of transparency surrounding DOGE has further fueled skepticism. The Trump administration has not disclosed the full scope of Musk’s authority, the composition of his team, or the funding sources for his initiatives.
This opacity has led to calls for congressional oversight and public hearings to clarify DOGE’s mandate and operations.
Trump has sought to downplay concerns, asserting that Musk operates under his administration’s approval without acknowledging that his White House has already exceeded presidential authority.
“Elon can’t do and won’t do anything without our approval,” Trump told reporters. “Where we think there’s a conflict or a problem, we won’t let him go near it.”
However, this assurance has done little to quell fears, particularly given Musk’s history of rapid, unilateral decision-making at companies and Trump’s obvious lack of respect for the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress.
As Musk continues to expand his influence over the federal government, the implications for democracy, privacy, and the rule of law remain uncertain.
Watchdog groups, lawmakers, and legal experts are calling for greater transparency and accountability to ensure that Musk’s actions do not undermine the integrity of government institutions. With lawsuits pending and congressional inquiries likely, the battle over Musk’s role in the Trump administration is far from over.
For now, the rapid centralization of power in the hands of an unelected billionaire has left many Americans uneasy, raising fundamental questions about the balance of power and the future of governance in the United States.