The Tycoon in the People's House
By Darrell Lee
President Trump's appointment of Elon Musk, a titan of industry helming Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, to lead the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in early 2025 was met with intrigue and apprehension. Tasked with a mandate to slash federal spending and streamline bureaucracy, Musk, serving as a "special government employee" (SGE), embarked on a "130 days" tenure characterized by what Senator Elizabeth Warren's office has described as "unprecedented upheaval." A subsequent report issued by Senator Warren's team offers a scathing narrative of this period, accusing the billionaire of systematically using his government position to enrich himself and his business empire. The report alleges "dozens of questionable actions," cataloging over 100 instances where it believes Musk abused his public role for private gain, actions it deems "scandalous behavior regardless of whether it subjects him to criminal prosecution." This essay will analyze the central allegations within Senator Warren's report, explore the potential violations of ethics and law indicated, consider historical examples of alleged corruption, and discuss the implications of such a high-profile intertwining of private interest with public authority.
Senator Warren's report paints a damning picture of Musk's brief foray into federal service. The central accusation is that Musk, far from acting as a disinterested public servant focused solely on governmental efficiency, leveraged his position to directly and indirectly benefit his corporate interests. The report attempts to document a pattern where the lines between Musk, the government official, and Musk, the CEO, became dangerously, perhaps illegally, blurred.
One of the most vivid and arguably blatant examples highlighted is the transformation of the White House lawn into what the report describes as a "temporary Tesla showroom." Such an event, if accurately portrayed, represents a startling co-opting of a potent symbol of American governance for commercial promotion. While the specifics of who authorized this display and under what pretenses are crucial, the imagery raises immediate ethical flags. Federal ethics regulations generally prohibit government employees from using their public office for private gain, including endorsing any product or enterprise. For an SGE leading a government department to seemingly use the White House itself as a backdrop for one of his companies goes beyond a mere ethical lapse; it suggests a brazen disregard for the established norms separating public service from private commercial activity and could involve misuse of government property or resources, depending on the specifics of the arrangement.
Warren's report details "more than two dozen instances where the Trump administration or government agencies have entered or explored new lucrative contracts" with Musk's companies during his DOGE tenure. The example of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) exploring the use of SpaceX's Starlink technology in surveillance towers is concerning. As head of DOGE, Elon Musk was able to influence agency budgets, operational priorities, and procurement strategies across the federal government. Simultaneously, as CEO of SpaceX, he stood to benefit directly from government contracts, creating an undeniable conflict of interest.
Federal law strictly prohibits a federal employee, including an SGE, from participating "personally and substantially" in any particular government matter (such as a contract, investigation, or policy decision) in which, to his knowledge, he or an organization he serves as an officer or employee has a financial interest. If Musk, in his DOGE capacity, took any action—advocating for specific technologies, influencing budget allocations that favored his companies' solutions, or even subtly shaping agency needs assessments—that could directly and predictably benefit SpaceX, Tesla, or xAI, he would be in violation. The Warren report's cataloging of numerous new or explored contracts during Musk's service suggests that such conflicts were not merely theoretical; the volume of these instances, over two dozen, points towards a pattern rather than isolated oversights.
The most alarming allegations in the report concern the "six times that the Trump administration or federal agencies halted enforcement actions against any of Musk's companies or the times that DOGE targeted government agencies investigating the companies." A specific example cited is a claim that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) "closed an investigation into Tesla for 'allegedly violating workplace safety rules. '" Suppose Musk used his authority or influence as head of DOGE to pressure OSHA or any other regulatory body to drop or curtail investigations into his own companies. In that case, this constitutes a severe abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
The role of SGEs is intended to allow the government to tap into specialized private sector expertise for limited periods. While SGEs are subject to fewer ethics restrictions than full-time federal employees in some respects, they are unequivocally bound by criminal conflict of interest statutes regarding matters directly affecting their financial interests or those of their outside employers. They are also prohibited from using their official position to coerce or induce benefits for themselves or their affiliated organizations. The actions described by Warren's report—promoting businesses, exploring lucrative contracts while in a position to influence those contracts, and allegedly interfering with regulatory enforcement against his own companies—challenge these fundamental principles of public service ethics.
If DOGE, under Musk's leadership, used its mandate to "slash federal government spending" as a pretext to defund, restructure, or intimidate divisions within agencies that were actively investigating or regulating Musk's private enterprises, this would represent a weaponization of a government department for personal protection and financial benefit. Such actions fall under statutes related to obstruction of agency proceedings or even broader abuse of power.
The report characterizes Musk's actions as "scandalous behavior regardless of whether it subjects him to criminal prosecution." This highlights an important distinction: while some actions might meet the high bar for criminal charges, many others can violate ethical norms, erode public trust, and create the appearance of corruption, which can be just as damaging to democratic institutions. The "norms at an astonishing pace" that Musk allegedly violated speak to disregarding the unwritten rules and ethical expectations underpinning good governance and preventing public officials' self-dealing.
The mission of DOGE is to identify and eliminate government waste and inefficiency. It creates an inherent paradox when its leader is simultaneously the CEO of major government contractors and seeking new federal funds. How could Musk impartially recommend budget cuts or efficiency measures for an agency like the Department of Defense if those cuts might impact existing or future contracts for SpaceX? Conversely, how could he advocate for new technological solutions (offered by his companies) as "efficient" without the appearance, or reality, of self-interest? The report suggests these conflicts were consistently resolved, budgetarily speaking, in favor of Musk's private interests.
While the report about Elon Musk's tenure raises concerns specific to his unique profile and the current political climate, there are other instances in American history where the line between public service and private enrichment blurred. Examining these precedents offers a perspective on the ongoing challenges of safeguarding public trust against the encroachment of powerful private interests.
One of the earliest and most infamous examples is the Yazoo Land Scandal of 1795. Land speculation companies bribed members of the Georgia state legislature to sell vast tracts of land (in present-day Alabama and Mississippi) at exceptionally low prices. Many of the legislators were shareholders in these companies, directly profiting from their votes. This blatant self-dealing and corruption sparked public outrage, leading to years of legal and political battles. While some of the original sales were eventually voided and subsequent federal action addressed the claims, the scandal highlighted the raw potential for public officials to exploit their positions for personal financial gain through land deals and government contracts. Punishment was mixed; some politicians faced electoral defeat and public disgrace, but the legal mechanisms for prosecuting such corruption were less developed.
During the Grant administration, the Crédit Mobilier scandal of the 1870s offers another parallel concerning government contracts and conflicts of interest. Executives of the Union Pacific Railroad created a sham construction company, Crédit Mobilier of America. They awarded it lucrative contracts to build the railroad, effectively overcharging the government (which provided loans and land grants) and channeling massive profits to themselves and influential members of Congress. These congressmen received discounted stock in Crédit Mobilier in exchange for their political support and favorable legislative action. The scandal implicated high-ranking officials, including the Vice President. While congressional investigations led to censure for some and damaged many reputations, outright criminal prosecutions for the members of Congress involved were limited. However, the public outcry contributed to a growing demand for civil service reform.
During the Harding administration in the early 1920s, the Teapot Dome scandal erupted. Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall secretly leased Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome, Wyoming, and two other locations in California to private oil companies at low rates without competitive bidding. In return, Fall received substantial personal loans and gifts from the oil executives, amounting to bribes. This was a clear case of a cabinet-level official using his public office for direct personal enrichment by manipulating government resources and contracts. Unlike earlier scandals, Teapot Dome resulted in more significant legal consequences: Secretary Fall was convicted of bribery and became the first U.S. cabinet member imprisoned.
These historical episodes, while varying in their specifics, share common traits with the allegations against Musk: the potential for those in public office to steer government actions (land sales, contract awards, resource leases) in ways that benefit their personal or associated business interests, and the use of official position to shield those interests from scrutiny or unfavorable action. The Teapot Dome scandal, in particular, demonstrates that when clear evidence of bribery or direct quid pro quo for official acts emerges, the legal system can impose severe penalties.
However, the modern situation presents new complexities, especially concerning Musk, whose companies are enmeshed in cutting-edge technology and national priorities such as space, AI, and energy. The lines between legitimate advocacy for innovative solutions (which might be offered by one's own company) and improper self-dealing can be more difficult to delineate than in cases of straightforward bribery. The defense often mounted is that such individuals are uniquely qualified to drive efficiency precisely because of their private sector experience, obscuring the lines of what constitutes a conflict. The historical record shows that while public outrage can be a powerful force, translating allegations of self-dealing and conflict of interest into successful legal punishments has been a challenging and inconsistent process, dependent on the specificity of the laws at the time, the quality of the evidence, and the political will to prosecute.
The "unprecedented upheaval to the federal workforce and government agencies" attributed to DOGE's four-month tenure requires scrutiny. At the same time, efficiency and spending reduction are legitimate governmental goals, but the methods and motivations behind such upheaval matter. Were decisions made based on objective criteria, or were some agencies or programs targeted because they posed obstacles to or failed to benefit Musk's commercial ventures sufficiently? The report implies the latter, suggesting a potential abuse of the efficiency mandate to settle scores or clear paths for corporate expansion.
Detailed investigations by the Department of Justice (DOJ) or relevant Inspectors General would be necessary to assess the legal culpability fully. These investigations would examine specific communications, internal decision-making processes, and Musk's direct impact on contractual and regulatory outcomes. Senator Warren's report serves as a call for such scrutiny, laying out a prima facie case of intertwined public and private interests operating in a manner that, at best, constitutes a severe ethical crisis and, at worst, may have involved illegal conduct.
The narrative presented by Warren's office is one of a system under siege, where the already porous boundaries between corporate power and state authority were virtually erased during Musk's tenure at DOGE. The "130 days" may have been brief, but the report argues that their impact set a dangerous precedent for how individuals with extraordinary wealth and sprawling business interests might operate within the government. It forces a confrontation with the adequacy of existing ethics laws to manage figures whose global commercial footprints and personal influence dwarf those of traditional political actors.
The report itself is a political document and not a court of law. Senator Warren, a nemesis of the Trump administration, has her own political agenda for publishing such a report. But this is precisely how democracy in America should work. If you support the Republican party, this report should be especially troubling and not dismissed offhand as false. Republicans should approach the allegations in the report with clear-headed judgment, not unquestioning loyalty. President Trump campaigned on a promise to eliminate the "deep state" within the federal government. He claimed there were "behind the scenes" individuals who made legislative, budgetary, and policy decisions to benefit a select elite group and special interest groups. Musk's appointment is the opposite of this campaign promise, and the alleged actions support the use of public office for the personal gain of the few. Adversarial positions between political parties help keep a check and balance to thwart any abuse of power, and this report is that relationship in action. In this particular case, a Democratic senator is holding the Republican administration accountable for what she believes are ethically questionable or illegal actions. The report identifies "more than 100 times" instances of Musk abusing his role, which demands a serious, independent investigation. Situations such as these suggest a change must be made to the current power dynamic between the executive and judiciary branches.
The DOJ is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government. It's the overarching federal law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing federal laws, administering justice, and ensuring public safety against foreign and domestic threats. The Attorney General, a member of the President's cabinet, appointed by the President and then approved by Congress, heads the DOJ. Think of it as the parent organization. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is an agency within the DOJ. It is the principal investigative arm of the DOJ and serves as both a federal criminal investigative body and an internal intelligence agency. The FBI investigates various federal crimes, including terrorism, cybercrime, white-collar crime, public corruption, civil rights violations, and more. The Director of the FBI, also appointed by the President and approved by Congress, reports to the Attorney General. The call for change is that the FBI must be administrated by a highly qualified individual outside and insulated from political influence. This essay proposes a congressional committee, comprised of members of both parties, should have decision-making authority over the head of the FBI. The "scandalous behavior" the report alleges, if proven, would represent an example of corruption at a very high level of government, undermining public trust and challenging the very notion of disinterested public service. Only the FBI can investigate government officials at Musk's level of power. The decision to initiate an investigation of the administration in power by the FBI should not be the discretion of an individual appointed by that administration.
Suppose an FBI investigation of Warren's accusations of Musk's actions at DOGE is accurate. In that case, future political science and history classes would use it as a case study on the risks of unchecked corporate influence at the heart of government, showing the need for robust safeguards and the value of an investigative institution that can operate free from political influence to hold government officials accountable for their actions and how changing the appointment process of a top position within the judiciary branch helped protect the public's interests from even the most powerful private and political titans. Today, with loyalty to the President the trait most desired for appointment to top agency positions, including the FBI, a criminal investigation into any administration member or ally of the President is highly unlikely.
Darrell Lee is the founder and editor of The Long Views, he has written two science fiction novels exploring themes of technological influence, science and religion, historical patterns, and the future of society. His essays draw on these long-standing interests and apply a similar analytical lens to politics, literature, artistic, societal, and historical events. He splits his time between rural east Texas and Florida’s west coast, where he spends his days performing variable star photometry, dabbling in astrophotography, thinking, napping, scuba diving, fishing, and writing, not necessarily in that order.