Table of Contents
What started as campaign promises about government efficiency has morphed into something far more complex and concerning. While headlines focus on trillion-dollar savings claims, a deeper investigation reveals a systematic infiltration of federal agencies by inexperienced operatives loyal to one man: Elon Musk.
Key Takeaways
- DOGE recruited young engineers through casual online forums with minimal vetting, including individuals who likely couldn't pass standard security clearances
- Elon Musk officially isn't DOGE's administrator according to White House court filings, yet he appears to be orchestrating operations across multiple federal agencies
- The claimed $55 billion in federal savings contains significant errors and doesn't account for basic math around actual government spending
- SpaceX engineers are being embedded within the FAA, creating massive conflicts of interest since the agency regulates SpaceX launches and has previously fined the company
- Tech industry leaders are capitulating to the administration not out of ideological alignment, but from fear of retaliation against their businesses
- The chaos appears deliberate, designed to distract from systematic data collection efforts across sensitive federal systems
The Spray-and-Pray Recruitment Strategy
Here's what's truly wild about how DOGE built its workforce. Instead of some elite recruiting process you'd expect for positions handling sensitive government data, former SpaceX and Palantir interns were literally posting in alumni message boards saying "Hey guys, does anyone want to save the federal government? DM me and we'll get you onboarded with DOGE."
That's not hyperbole - that's exactly how Katie Drummond, Wired's Global Editorial Director, describes the recruitment process her team uncovered. We're talking about 19-year-olds who run companies called "Tesla Do Sexy LLC" being handed access to federal personnel files and sensitive systems containing data about millions of Americans.
The vetting process appears nonexistent. Take the guy everyone's heard about - "Big Balls" - who's been involved in what multiple security experts describe as "criminally adjacent enterprises" and runs web domains out of Russia. Several experts told Wired it's highly unlikely this individual would ever pass a standard security clearance to walk into a federal agency. Yet there he is, apparently working within the system.
What makes this even more concerning is the deliberate choice to recruit young, inexperienced people. As Drummond points out, there's a "cult of Elon" among young men in tech who view Musk as an icon. They're malleable and will "do as told because they are doing it for Elon" and this larger narrative about saving America. Older, more experienced government workers simply wouldn't go along with what's being asked of them.
The Legal Shell Game Around Musk's Authority
The Trump administration has created a fascinating legal contradiction around Elon Musk's role. For months, President Trump repeatedly said Musk "runs DOGE" and is "in charge of DOGE." Campaign materials, public statements, even Time Magazine covers have positioned Musk as the face and leader of this government efficiency initiative.
But when lawsuits started flying from state attorneys general arguing that Musk was wielding power that should only be held by elected officials or Senate-confirmed appointees, the White House suddenly changed its tune. In a sworn court filing, they claimed Musk is just "an employee in the White House Office akin to a senior adviser" - basically saying he's just helping out the president.
This isn't just political spin; it's a legal maneuver designed to let Musk continue operating within federal agencies without facing ramifications for overstepping constitutional boundaries. The whole thing reeks of having your cake and eating it too - publicly claiming Musk is running this massive efficiency operation while legally arguing he's just an advisor when the courts come calling.
What's particularly telling is that even people very close to President Trump apparently don't know what DOGE is actually doing day-to-day. Multiple sources indicate the administration often finds out about DOGE activities through press reports, suggesting Musk's operation is consistently "two or three steps ahead" of the actual White House.
Following the Money Trail - And Finding Serious Problems
DOGE loves throwing around big numbers about government savings, but the math doesn't add up when you dig into the details. They've claimed $55 billion in federal spending cuts, but independent analysis shows the actual figure is much smaller. Their own website contained a major error, mislabeling a contract as $8 billion when it was actually $8 million - exactly the kind of mistake that undermines credibility on financial oversight.
The reality is that firing civil servants, while cruel and disruptive, doesn't generate the kind of money DOGE is promising. Even sweeping layoffs across multiple agencies won't get you anywhere close to the trillion dollars Musk claims he's targeting. The biggest expenses in the federal budget are entitlement programs, defense spending, and debt service - none of which can be addressed by having 25-year-old engineers fire probationary employees.
What's more troubling is the apparent indiscriminate nature of these firings. DOGE operatives are accessing personnel systems and pushing through layoffs of "hundreds or thousands of federal workers" without really understanding what these people do or why their positions might be critical. Some longtime government employees with 10, 20, or 30 years of experience are being lumped into "probationary worker" categories simply because they were recently promoted, then summarily dismissed.
The pattern suggests this isn't really about efficiency or cost savings - it's about clearing out existing personnel to install more Musk loyalists throughout the federal government.
The Data Grab That Should Worry Everyone
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of DOGE's operations is their systematic push to gain access to sensitive federal databases. Young engineers are being embedded across agencies with apparent administrative access to systems containing personnel files, salary information, and other sensitive data about millions of Americans.
Multiple lawsuits are invoking a Watergate-era Privacy Act that prevents government employees from accessing Americans' data in unauthorized ways. But here's the problem: these lawsuits are taking a "Band-Aid, slap dash approach" where they might succeed in blocking access to Treasury data but fail to prevent access to IRS information. There's no holistic mechanism to stop wholesale data collection.
The question everyone should be asking is: what do they want all this data for? One theory that keeps surfacing is AI training. We know the AI industry believes it's running out of high-quality training data, and having access to comprehensive federal databases would put any AI company in a commanding position. Musk's xAI and Grok could benefit enormously from this kind of data advantage.
But even if it's not about AI training, the systematic collection of federal data by operatives loyal to one individual rather than democratic institutions should terrify anyone who cares about checks and balances in government.
Conflicts of Interest Everywhere You Look
The most blatant example of conflicts involves SpaceX engineers being embedded within the FAA. This is the same agency that regulates SpaceX launches and has repeatedly fined the company for safety violations. Now SpaceX employees are being brought in to "fix" the agency that oversees their former employer.
As someone who travels frequently and takes Xanax to deal with flight anxiety, Katie Drummond notes this particular conflict is "genuinely a very scary prospect." The FAA has been understaffed and spread thin for years, dealing with ongoing safety concerns. The idea of having people with SpaceX experience trying to reshape the agency that governs commercial aviation while potentially benefiting their former company creates multiple layers of ethical problems.
This pattern repeats across agencies. DOGE operatives often have multiple email addresses and work across several agencies simultaneously, creating a web of conflicted loyalties and reporting structures that makes accountability nearly impossible.
Meanwhile, Musk's other companies are benefiting from his government position in more direct ways. X is reportedly using veiled threats against advertisers, essentially telling companies they need to advertise on the platform or face potential investigations or legal action. As one advertising executive put it, "every advertiser who knows what they're doing" understands it's "prudent business judgment" to throw money at X rather than risk getting a hostile call from someone with direct access to the president.
The Tech Industry's Shameful Capitulation
The most depressing aspect of this whole situation might be watching tech leaders abandon any pretense of principles in favor of pure opportunism. The images from Trump's inauguration tell the story perfectly - every major tech CEO lined up to kiss the ring, despite many of them having criticized Trump just years earlier.
Mark Zuckerberg's transformation has been particularly nauseating. Meta dismantled its content moderation systems, ended fact-checking programs, and eliminated diversity initiatives - all to appease an administration that sees these policies as threats. Tim Cook looked "physically ill" at the inauguration but showed up anyway. Sam Altman went so far as to polish Trump's shoes while praising his leadership for AI.
The message from tech companies to journalists is clear: don't ask about politics, they don't want to talk about it. This represents a massive shift from 2016 when companies like Airbnb came out swinging against Trump administration policies on immigration and other issues.
What we're witnessing isn't ideological alignment - it's pure fear-based calculation. As one source noted, if Kamala Harris had won, "Mark Zuckerberg would be asking us to call him they/them." These are companies putting profit before principles, terrified of regulatory retaliation or losing government contracts.
The long-term implications are staggering. When the country's most powerful technology companies refuse to speak out against authoritarian overreach, they're not just protecting their bottom lines - they're enabling the erosion of democratic norms that ultimately make their success possible.
Trump's Hands-Off Approach to Chaos
Perhaps most telling is President Trump's apparent disinterest in the details of what DOGE is actually doing. Multiple sources suggest he loves the narrative - cutting costs, being close to tech visionaries, creating headlines - but doesn't care about the fine print of how it's happening.
This hands-off approach serves Trump's purposes perfectly. He gets to claim credit for efficiency initiatives while maintaining plausible deniability about specific actions. The chaos creates a constant news cycle that keeps his administration "top of mind" while more systematic changes happen below the radar.
Trump has always used chaos as a political tool, and Musk's approach fits perfectly into this strategy. While everyone focuses on the Gulf of America, DEI rollbacks, and other headline-grabbing moves, 25-year-old engineers are quietly gaining administrative access to sensitive federal systems.
The pattern suggests this administration learned from 2016. Instead of relying solely on traditional political appointees who might have independent loyalties or ethical constraints, they're installing operatives who are personally loyal to specific individuals rather than institutions or democratic processes.
What Comes Next
Looking ahead, the trajectory seems clear: more Musk loyalists will be embedded across the federal government, creating a parallel power structure that answers to him rather than traditional democratic accountability mechanisms. The legal challenges will continue, but they're playing catch-up to a rapidly evolving situation.
The bigger question is whether this represents a temporary disruption or a permanent shift in how government operates. If young operatives can gain sweeping access to federal systems with minimal oversight, and if tech companies continue capitulating to avoid retaliation, we might be watching the emergence of something that looks very different from traditional American governance.
The optimistic scenario is that institutional safeguards eventually kick in, courts impose meaningful restrictions, and normal democratic processes reassert themselves. But that requires sustained pressure from journalists, activists, and citizens who refuse to normalize what's happening.
The pessimistic scenario is that we're witnessing the early stages of a more fundamental transformation - one where democratic institutions get systematically captured by individuals with the resources and ruthlessness to game the system at scale.
What's certain is that the chaos isn't accidental. It's strategic, designed to overwhelm traditional oversight mechanisms while systematic changes happen in the background. The question is whether enough people will pay attention to the details before it's too late to reverse course.
