The Dictatorship
Elon Musk is sweeping Washington — and answering to nobody
Much of President Donald Trump’s return to Washington feels familiar, from his withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement to his claim that DEI is to blame for an aircraft accident over Washington. What’s new is his injection of mega-billionaire Elon Musk into the federal government by having him lead a so-called Department of Government Efficiency. So far Musk’s foray into government appears to be based on the model of sloppily gutting a companywhich bodes poorly for a functioning government. Equally concerning is that Musk’s reach appears to far exceed the kind of influence any private citizen should have over the federal government, which is in turn raising a crisis of authority in Washington.
The firehose of news surrounding Musk’s “efficiency” initiatives in Washington has been astonishing. Here’s a quick round-up of some of the most notable developments.
- On Tuesday, millions of federal employees received an email from the Office of Personnel Management demanding that they either accept a huge set of changes to the workplace or resign. The subject line of the email, “Fork in the Road,” was the same subject line Musk used in an email to employees of Twitter shortly after he purchased the company in 2022, and employees of the social media platform were given a similar edict. The Washington Post, citing four people familiar with the situation, reported that the email was the result of Musk’s influence. Among other things, the listed changes to federal jobs included a new “performance culture” and “enhanced standards of conduct.” The email offered federal workers an option to take a “deferred resignation,” which would apparently mean agreeing to leave their jobs now but getting paid through September.
- Musk appears to have acted without consulting at least some of Trump’s inner circle. Those same sources told the Post that the email “blindsided some advisers to President Donald Trump, including officials in the budget office and agencies that typically would be consulted in advance of such monumental changes to personnel and spending policies.” And Reuters cites two agency officials who said Musk aides “have locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees.”
- Musk has drawn from his lieutenants in the private sector to help him oversee his interventions in the government. As The New York Times reportshis meddling includes placing a human resources executive from SpaceX as an adviser to the Office of Personnel Management; the head of Musk’s tunneling startup, The Boring Company, who also helped him cut costs at Twitter, at the new Department of Government Efficiency; and a Tesla engineer at the General Services Administration. A Morgan Stanley banker who helped lead Musk’s purchase of Twitter is slated to take a gig at the Commerce Department.
- According to a Washington Post reportciting three people with knowledge of the matter, the “highest-ranking career official at the Treasury Department is departing after a clash with allies of billionaire Elon Musk over access to sensitive payment systems.” That payments system disburses trillions of dollars annually and affects the lives of tens of millions of Americans who, among other things, receive support from Social Security and Medicare. The Post also noted: “It is unclear precisely why Musk’s team sought access to those systems. But both Musk and the Trump administration more broadly have sought to control spending in ways that far exceed efforts by their predecessors and have alarmed legal experts.”
- Musk’s involvement in the General Services Administration includes terminating leases for federal offices. Cost-cutting there could also affect federal contracting and technology services across the government.
This is far from a comprehensive account of Musk’s fingerprints across Washington, but the emerging picture is clear: Musk is everywhere, and he’s telegraphing a mission to radically reduce and reshape the federal workforce around a hazy set of criteria ostensibly tied to performance.
Trump signaled in his campaign that he intended to purge the federal bureaucracy and stack it with loyalists. That was in and of itself a concerning authoritarian pledge. But it’s been surprising that he has enlisted the richest man in the world to help him do it. That man also happens to be an unelected right-wing demagogue with vast private business holdings that put him in several conflicts of interest with the federal government.
Musk appears to be exhibiting the “move fast and break things ethos” that prevails among many Silicon Valley executives. Musk has no experience with or demonstrable understanding of the government of the most powerful country in the world. That hasn’t humbled him. Early signs suggest that Musk is moving at a full sprint and views the federal government the way he viewed Twitter — an institution in need of radical reform through drastic cost-cutting, sweeping changes in internal culture and new features.
Notably, at Twitter, now X, Musk’s swashbuckling approach didn’t have the intended effect: He demolished the company’s valuedestroyed the quality of the product and sparked a mass exodus of users. It’s deeply disturbing to think what he could do to something as complex and consequential as the U.S. government.
The problem is that, even with the obvious financial incentives Musk possesses, we don’t exactly know what he wants to do with his power grabs. The speed and opacity with which Musk is taking action have no precedent in modern politics. It’s also not clear how much, if any, of what he’s doing is even legal or how much may be masking ulterior motives.
As University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket recently noted:
Elon Musk is not a federal employee, nor has he been appointed by the President nor approved by the Senate to have any leadership role in government. The “Department of Government Efficiency,” announced by Trump in a January 20th executive order, is not truly any sort of government department or agency, and even the executive order uses quotes in the title. It’s perfectly fine to have a marketing gimmick like this, but DOGE does not have power over established government agencies, and Musk has no role in government. It does not matter that he is an ally of the President. Musk is a private citizen taking control of established government offices. That is not efficiency; that is a coup.
As NBC News reportedEverett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, has said that resignations prompted by the “Fork in the Road” email “should not be viewed as voluntary.”
“The number of civil servants hasn’t meaningfully changed since 1970, but there are more Americans than ever who rely on government services,” Kelley said. “Purging the federal government of dedicated career civil servants will have vast, unintended consequences that will cause chaos for the Americans who depend on a functioning federal government.” He added, “Between the flurry of anti-worker executive orders and policies, it is clear that the Trump administration’s goal is to turn the federal government into a toxic environment where workers cannot stay even if they want to.”
The National Treasury Employees Union called on its members to refuse to resign and said that the OPM guidance to workers in the “Fork in the Road” email is “questionable at best and possibly violates the rules of conduct that federal employees are required to follow.”
This is a rapidly developing situation, and it’s unclear how far Musk can or will go in pursuing his “rip wires out of the wall until the lights go out” method. But at the moment it looks like a billionaire with a soft spot for extreme right-wing politics is trying to gut the government and muzzle federal bureaucrats with extraordinary speed. What remains to be seen is how the federal workforce, the courts and the public might respond to and reject his shenanigans.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for BLN Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Blue Light News, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter here.
The Dictatorship
Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.
In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.
Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.
In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”
A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.
Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.
Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.
In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.
It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.
On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring
About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.
All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.
The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.
The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.
The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
The Times summarized the broader context nicely:
Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.
Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.
In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.
The article added:
Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.
Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.
This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.
* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”
* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.
* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.
* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.
* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.
* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?





