Elon Musk’s position as the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, often referred to as DOGE, appears at first glance to be a bold initiative aimed at reforming the inefficiencies entrenched within federal bureaucracy. However, beneath the surface of claims regarding cost reductions and regulatory simplifications lies a more concerning narrative that raises questions about the true intentions behind this overhaul.

Musk has taken on the designation of a “special government employee” overseeing the White House office previously known as the U.S. Digital Service, which was rebranded as the U.S. DOGE Service at the outset of President Donald Trump’s second term. The supposed objectives of Musk’s team include maximizing operational efficiency and eliminating waste and duplication within government processes.

While this may seem like a transformative step toward integrating Silicon Valley-style innovation into governance, the underlying motivations driving Musk’s involvement appear to be far from altruistic.

With his expansive corporate empire and aspirations in fields such as artificial intelligence, coupled with a desire for significant financial influence and a longstanding aversion to governmental oversight, Musk’s role grants him unprecedented access to sensitive government systems. This access, coupled with the opaque decision-making processes guiding DOGE thus far, positions Musk to potentially reap substantial financial and strategic rewards for himself and his businesses, which include Tesla, the electric vehicle manufacturer, and SpaceX, the space transport company.

A particularly striking historical parallel can be drawn to the British East India Company, which began in 1600 as a merchant shipping firm with exclusive trading rights in the Indian Ocean. Over time, the company acquired quasi-governmental powers, ultimately dominating British colonies in Asia, including large parts of modern-day India, and gaining the authority to mint currency on behalf of the British crown in 1677.

In my forthcoming book, “Who Elected Big Tech?”, I discuss how the United States is currently witnessing a comparable trend where a private entity is increasingly assuming control over government operations.

What took centuries during the colonial era is now unfolding at an alarming pace within days, facilitated by digital advancements. In the 21st century, access to data and digital financial systems has supplanted traditional trading posts and private military forces. In this new landscape, effective communication has become the paramount source of power, overshadowing physical might.

Understanding Musk’s Corporate Influence on Government Operations

To fully grasp the implications of Musk’s maneuvers, it is essential to consider the vastness of his corporate empire. He commands several companies that hold federal contracts and operate under stringent government regulations. Notable entities such as SpaceX, Tesla, The Boring Company, Neuralink, and xAI all operate within sectors that are heavily influenced by government oversight, with the regulatory framework having the potential to either bolster or jeopardize their fortunes.

In his new capacity, Musk possesses the authority to oversee, and potentially dismantle, the very government agencies that have historically imposed constraints on his business operations. For instance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has conducted multiple investigations into Tesla’s Autopilot system, while the Securities and Exchange Commission has penalized Musk for tweets that significantly affected market dynamics; environmental regulations have also placed limitations on SpaceX.

Through DOGE, there exists a substantial risk that these oversight mechanisms could be weakened or entirely eliminated under the pretense of enhancing efficiency.

However, the most alarming aspect of Musk’s leadership at DOGE is its unprecedented access to sensitive government data. Reports suggest that DOGE employees have been granted digital permissions to access information within the U.S. government’s payment systems, which encompass critical personal data such as bank account details, Social Security numbers, and income tax records. Alarmingly, they are also believed to possess the capability to modify the software, data, transactions, and records within these systems.

Several media reports indicate that Musk’s team has already initiated changes to the programs responsible for processing payments to Social Security beneficiaries and government contractors. These alterations appear aimed at facilitating the blocking of payments and concealing records related to any payments that have been blocked, altered, or made.

Even if DOGE employees only require the ability to read the data, they could easily replicate Americans’ most sensitive personal information, which raises significant privacy concerns.

A federal court has issued a ruling to prevent such actions, at least temporarily. Nevertheless, should the data be funneled into Grok, Musk’s AI system created by xAI and already linked with the Musk-owned X (formerly known as Twitter), it would grant an unparalleled capability to anticipate economic trends, identify weaknesses within government structures, and model voter behavior.

This concentration of information and power in the hands of a single individual is both enormous and deeply concerning.

Examining the Interplay Between Cryptocurrency and Government Control

In addition to his involvement with DOGE, Musk shares a profound connection to cryptocurrency, much like Trump and many of his closest advisors. The simultaneous emergence of Trump’s own cryptocurrency alongside DOGE’s apparent alignment with Dogecoin suggests a potential coordinated strategy aimed at seizing control over America’s financial system and economic policy, effectively transferring significant power into private hands.

The brilliance, as well as the peril, of this strategy lies in the fact that each step may appear valid when viewed in isolation: the modernization of government systems, enhancements in efficiency, and upgrades to payment infrastructures. Yet collectively, these actions lay the groundwork for shifting even more financial power to an elite few.

Musk’s authoritarian tendencies are evident in his management style at X, where he has asserted that it is illegal to disclose the names of individuals working for him. This raises concerns about how he might exercise his newfound governmental powers. Companies that criticize Musk could face unwarranted audits, regulatory agencies scrutinizing his businesses may find their budgets slashed, while his allies could be granted preferential treatment when it comes to government contracts.

This is not mere speculation; it represents a logical progression stemming from the combined authority of DOGE and Musk’s demonstrated behaviors.

Critics have labeled Musk’s actions at DOGE as a monumental corporate coup, while others simply refer to it as a coup. The movement opposing these actions is gaining traction in Washington, D.C., and across the nation. However, it appears unlikely that protests alone will be sufficient to halt Musk’s agenda.

Who can effectively oversee a group that is designed to dismantle oversight mechanisms? The administration’s prior illegal termination of at least a dozen inspectors general before Musk’s operation began indicates a calculated plan to eliminate governmental accountability. The Republican-led Congress, closely aligned with Trump, may be reluctant to intervene; even if they were inclined to act, Musk is moving at a pace that far exceeds the typical congressional timeline.

Building a Startup Nation at the Expense of Democratic Governance

When viewed collectively, the actions of Musk and Trump lay the groundwork for what cryptocurrency investor and entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan describes as “the network state.”

This concept posits that a virtual nation may be formed online prior to establishing any physical presence. Consider the network state akin to a tech startup with its own cryptocurrency—before declaring independence and seeking sovereignty, it first cultivates a community and develops digital systems. Once a Musk-aligned cryptocurrency achieves official recognition, the foundational structures and relationships would already be established, rendering alternatives less feasible.

The transformation of the global financial system into one dominated by privately controlled cryptocurrencies could significantly diminish the power of national governments, which are accountable to their citizens. Musk has already initiated this endeavor, leveraging his wealth and social media influence to engage in political matters not just in the U.S. but also in several European nations, including Germany.

A nation governed by a cryptocurrency-centric system would no longer be under the control of the populace residing within its borders, but rather by those capable of purchasing the digital currency. In such a scenario, there is genuine concern that individuals like Musk, or leaders from the Communist Party of China, Russian President Vladimir Putin, or AI-surveillance conglomerates like Palantir, could undermine Congress’s authority over government spending and actions. This shift could ultimately strip Congress, the judiciary, and American citizens of their power to hold presidents accountable.

The implications of this situation present a multitude of unprecedented conflict-of-interest challenges that are vast and complex in nature.

The pressing question for Americans, therefore, is not whether government modernization is necessary, but whether they are prepared to forfeit their democratic principles in pursuit of Musk’s interpretation of efficiency. By allowing tech leaders direct access to government functions, we are not merely streamlining bureaucratic processes; we are profoundly altering the relationship between private power and public governance, potentially jeopardizing American national security and the foundational power of We, the People.

The most critical inefficiency of all may reside in the delayed response of Americans to this escalating crisis.

Allison Stanger, Distinguished Endowed Professor, Middlebury

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.