Following the 2024 presidential election, in which Elon Musk contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to President Donald Trump’s administration, Trump rewarded Musk his own seat in the United States government.
Under Trump’s supervision, Musk is leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has acquired data it isn’t authorized to have, has attempted to forego the White House’s power dynamics and has far overreached the bounds of power that were set out for it.
In February, DOGE sent emails to federal employees telling them they had 48 hours to explain what they had accomplished in the previous week as a way of evaluating worker efficiency. This threatened employees of the IRS, the National Park Service and more, with Musk asserting on X (formally Twitter) that failure to respond to the email would be taken as a resignation.
In response, many companies advised their employees to disregard the email. Though some members of Congress and federal employees know better than to allow a faux-politician like Musk to order them around, his presence in Washington D.C. and his control over X continue to exert enormous influence over public opinion.
Following his purchase of the platform in 2021, Musk became the sole owner of X, giving him immense control over the information the American public views on a daily basis. According to NBC News, Musk, who all users on X automatically follow, is regularly repeating misinformation or alt-right content. He amplifies the conservative accounts defending him by placing their posts on the main page, while suppressing progressive accounts for saying “trans” or “cis,” according to Them.
Of course, Musk is not the only political figure who poses a threat to our nation. However, as an unelected “Special Government Employee” at the helm of a department with no Senate confirmation, his presence in Washington contributes to a dangerous precedent of wealthy individuals being able to manipulate politics. Furthermore, the president’s ability to create new positions — like Musk’s role — without congressional approval is an abuse of executive power that must be limited for the sake of our democracy.
In the meantime, Musk is taking full advantage of the power and influence he has in a manner similar to his handling of X. Shortly after taking over the platform, Musk promptly laid off 80% of staff, according to NDTV.
On the surface, Musk’s claims of efficiency may appear to be valid — he saved X Business millions of dollars in salaries and avoided potential redundancies. But while buying out a leadership position and laying off thousands of people may have worked for his private company, it’s not the best strategy for promoting government productivity.
Now, imagine Musk’s reckless abandoning of X employees being applied to our government. That’s essentially what DOGE has done so far. Thousands of people were laid off after just one month of the program — a program outside of the understood chain of command — despite no historical precedent or justification for an unelected official having permission to pursue mass layoffs.
It’s too early to provide numbers on how these layoffs will affect the economy, but there are discrepancies in Musk’s rhetoric surrounding his claims of inefficiency, cost-cutting and corruption.
He argues that DOGE will seek to address all of these concerns through layoffs. But is that feasible? How can we become more efficient by removing staff who are doing valid work? Is there any evidence to suggest a National Park employee is corrupt? As of right now, neither Trump, Musk, nor DOGE have provided a coherent explanation for the program’s actions or its end goal.
Regardless of your opinion on Musk or his positions, it remains that our country was established with a powerful yet delicate balance of checks across various parts of our government at its founding.
One would hope that someone brought in to “trim the fat” would do so thoughtfully and carefully. Instead, Musk is performing a surgeon’s job with a chainsaw.
After Musk had the aforementioned “productivity check” email sent out, Everett Kelly, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees sent a direct message to Musk in an interview with AP News.
“It is cruel and disrespectful to hundreds of thousands of veterans who are wearing their second uniform in the civil service to be forced to justify their job duties to this out-of-touch, privileged, unelected billionaire who has never performed one single hour of honest public service in his life,” Kelly said.
Musk — who represents a party that values the traditional, hardworking, nuclear American family — does not appear to be concerned about the fact that Americans who are laid off have their own families to take care of and provide for. As of today, the greatest method to keep federal employees safe from layoffs is to support legislation that will protect them.
One such proposal here in Pennsylvania appears to do exactly that. Gov. Josh Shapiro has signed an executive order outlining a plan to recruit federal workers who were dismissed under the Trump administration.
If DOGE were passed by the Senate in the same way the Departments of Education was, Musk would be completely justified in pursuing his cost-cutting plan, regardless of whether you agree with it.
However, this is not the case, and many people believe he has just bought himself a seat at the table with no checks in place to prevent him from getting what he wants.
Comment policy
Comments posted to The Brown and White website are reviewed by a moderator before being approved. Incendiary speech or harassing language, including comments targeted at individuals, may be deemed unacceptable and not published. Spam and other soliciting will also be declined.
The Brown and White also reserves the right to not publish entirely anonymous comments.
1 Comment
I am writing in response to the recent opinion piece discussing Elon Musk’s alleged role in leading a newly formed “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) under President Trump following the 2024 election. While I respect the right of all citizens to express their views, it is essential to ground such commentary in factual, constitutional, and legal reality. Upon close review, several claims made in the piece are not only misleading but fundamentally inaccurate and legally implausible.
To begin, the assertion that Elon Musk contributed “hundreds of millions of dollars” to the Trump administration is legally impossible. U.S. law prohibits direct contributions to a presidential administration. Campaign donations are strictly regulated and subject to contribution limits. No verified evidence exists to support the claim that Musk received a government role as a quid pro quo.
The idea that Musk now leads a federal department — DOGE — is similarly unfounded. The creation of any new executive department requires an act of Congress, with appropriations, oversight, and often years of planning and debate. There is no public record of such a department, nor of any Senate-confirmed position held by Musk within the federal government.
Equally problematic is the claim that DOGE demanded federal employees respond to performance emails under threat of termination. Such actions would violate numerous civil service protections codified in Title 5 of the U.S. Code and would be immediately challenged by unions, oversight boards, and the Office of Personnel Management. Federal employees cannot be summarily dismissed by unelected individuals or through informal communications. It seems to me that this exercise was to demonstrate how many people abuse their employment or are not giving the required effort. Furthermore, now that covid is over it is time for people to work onsite.
Additionally, the piece conflates private ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) with governmental authority. While critics may debate Musk’s influence over public discourse, X is a private company — not a public utility — and thus is not subject to the same constitutional speech constraints as government entities. No individual is forced to follow Musk, and users can adjust their content preferences freely.
The most concerning claim — that thousands of federal workers have been laid off due to DOGE actions — is verifiably false. Any such reduction in force (RIF) would require months of legal notice, documented justification, and follow rigorous due process. Such sweeping changes would not occur without national media coverage, congressional hearings, and public outcry. That said, people can be removed for cause or due to a rightsizing of the operation (and even then, there is a protocol).
Finally, the argument that Musk’s alleged position represents a dangerous precedent for unaccountable private power fails under scrutiny. There is no evidence that Musk holds any formal authority within the U.S. government. Without Senate confirmation or legislative appointment, he cannot act in any official capacity on behalf of the federal government. He can, however, share his findings with the president who can use the information how he may please. It is the responsibility as to how this information is used is the president’s responsibility as are the consequences. The real question is – given all the apparent waste, fraud and abuse that has been brought to light – does this not give one pause? Shouldn’t steps be taken to correct and avoid such things in the future. I think the answer is obvious.
If the purpose of the opinion was to highlight concerns about executive overreach, billionaire influence, or government accountability, those topics warrant serious and fact-based discussion. However, the current piece undermines its own argument by relying on fictionalized scenarios and legally impossible claims. For the sake of informed public discourse, we must distinguish between valid critique and imaginative conjecture. I hope this helps…RS