Elon Musk’s AI Power Grab: Feds in the Crosshairs | Image Source: www.reuters.com
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 1, 2025 – When Elon Musk and the Trump administration launched the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), it was launched as a radical review to simplify inflamed federal systems. But only a few months in its operation, the DOGE has become the focal point of a storm that involves artificial intelligence, government surveillance, secrecy and allegations of overtaking that threaten to redefine the power balance in Washington.
According to Reuters and other sources, Musk’s team would use IA technologies – including Grok’s chatbot – and encrypted messaging applications like Signal to monitor federal employees, allegedly for signs of disloyalty to President Donald Trump. If that is true, these allegations suggest a powerful surveillance apparatus integrated with federal agencies, hidden behind layers of ambiguity and operating outside traditional surveillance mechanisms. The impact is profound, not only for federal employees, but also for the integrity of democratic governance itself.
Does DOGE really use AI to monitor public servants?
The main dispute is the allegation that the Department of Justice has deployed artificial information to examine internal communications in various federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As Reuters asserts, several sources with knowledge of internal operations say that the team analyzes messages for feelings considered anti-Trump or anti-Musque. Some of these surveillance allegations are extended to platforms such as Microsoft Teams, which raises significant privacy and legality concerns.
But the EPA strongly refutes these claims. In a statement to Newsweek, an EPA spokesman categorically denied that the agency “recognizes or transcribes telephone calls, meetings or calendar entries”, and described the accusations as “categically false”. While some managers would have been warned to monitor their language, the Agency insists that no formal monitoring protocol is in place. However, the mere perception of surveillance has had a deterrent effect on staff behaviour, creating an environment of fear and self-censorship.
Why use the DOGE Raising Alarm Bells signal?
Another controversial issue is the use of the encrypted messaging app Signal by DOGE staff. According to experts, if the DOGE communicates by Signal with missing messages, federal legislation on documents may be lacking. Kathleen Clark, expert in government ethics at the University of Washington, St. John’s. Louis told Reuters: “If they use Signal and do not save every message to federal files, then they act illegally. »
This is only a technical concern, but it is fundamental to government transparency. Under federal law, communications relating to public enterprises must be kept for registration. Missing messages, documents shared by Google Docs without chain of custody, and a lack of verification routes suggest that DOGE could create a parallel system, without supervision or responsibility.
How does the Congress respond to the activities of DOGE?
In response to growing concerns, democratic legislators are withdrawing. The representative of New Mexico, Melanie Stansbury, introduced a resolution that called for transparency. The measure requires the Trump administration to disclose detailed records on the use of the CEW by the DOGE, data management practices and the scope of the data to which it is accessible, including social security and IRS records.
The Stansbury Resolution, noted by NextGov, calls for “any document, document, report, memorandum, correspondence or other communication” related to the use of federal data and AI systems by DOGE. He stressed the urgency by saying: “The Americans ask why Elon Musk and DOGE hack our personal and sensitive data and what they do with it. »
If the Republican-led committee stops or ignores the resolution, the Democrats plan to raise it in the House. This movement reflects the growing tension on DOGE’s opaque operations and increased anxiety about the uncontrolled executive power.
What is the status of the presence of DOGE in government agencies?
The presence of DOGE has already had a tangible impact on the federal landscape. At the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), DOGE operators reportedly restricted access to a critical employee database, leaving only two people in access – a career official and Greg Hogan, a policy appointment related to AI startups. According to the judicial documents cited by Reuters, more than 100 OPM officials have been excluded from essential systems since January.
In the Treasury Department, DOGE staff have access to federal payment systems, leading to legal action. At the EPA, Trump-appointed officials reportedly ordered managers to monitor “anti-Trump” or ”anti-Musk” in communications. Although these stories vary and some are denied, the model paints an image of the intensification of internal disruptions and the marginalization of staff under the banner of efficiency.
What is the controversy over Musk’s intervention?
As a special employee of the government, Elon Musk is legally limited to participating in shares that may benefit him or his company. However, critics argue that their role in DOGE represents a deep conflict of interest. Musk, who previously murmured that AI could replace large sectors of the federal workforce, is now spying on efforts to apply AI in all agencies, ironically, while his own company, xAI, is developing rival technologies for the OpenAI ChatGPT.
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders said in March: “The person who heads the government right now is Elon Musk
His concerns mirror those voiced by watchdog groups like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which recently won a federal court order compelling DOGE to release records under freedom of information laws. So far, none have been provided.
Does DOGE achieve real government savings?
One of the DOGE’s greatest demands is to reduce federal spending by $1 billion by eliminating waste. As stated by EPA administrator Lee Zeldin at Fox Business, the partnership with DOGE led to the cancellation of over $2 billion in grants for diversity and environmental justice programs. Zeldin welcomed the initiative by calling DOGE staff “officials”
However, critics argue that these economies are at the expense of democratic norms, transparency and fair political initiatives. According to the Washington Post, the DOGE also used the CEW to analyze data from the Department of Education, asking new questions about the scope and ethics of its influence. Effectiveness can be achieved, but at what cost institutional integrity?
What legal battles are being waged against DOGE?
The wave of legal control is increasing. In February, 14 State lawyers filed a complaint alleging that the acts of the DOGE violated the Constitution. It is expected that there will be more requests as reports indicate that DOGE officials make decisions without imposing sanctions on federal contracts and access sensitive databases.
Monitoring groups and civil liberties advocates caution that the activities of DOGE may constitute a “shadow government” that operates without significant control. So far, the Department of Justice has remained silent, but internal investigations have reportedly started in several agencies. The outcome of these battles can determine whether the DOGE survives as a model for future government effectiveness, or becomes an unlimited power warning account.
In the coming weeks, the House Oversight Committee is expected to take a decision on the Stansbury resolution. If the GOP blocks it, the Democrats can take action to force a vote, highlighting the secrets of the DOGE. Until then, the questions are multiplied: What exactly does Musk do with our data? How far does his influence go? And who, if anyone sees the vigilantes?
