This is an adapted excerpt from the Feb. 5 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

Anger is rising as the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, continues to hollow out the United States government. The unelected billionaire and his “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE, have already reportedly seized control of payment and personnel systems and attempted to shut down an agency created by Congress. Americans across the country — in protests, demonstrations and teach-ins — are focusing their outrage on him with calls to “Fire Musk” (even though it is not entirely clear whom he is working for — other than himself).

The man Republicans are letting dismantle swaths of the federal government reportedly has a direct personal and financial interest in that dismantling.

But Musk is still pushing on. On Wednesday, DOGE staffers reportedly entered the headquarters of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Maryland, as well as the building of its parent agency, the Department of Commerce, in Washington, D.C., according to CBS News, citing former NOAA officials who spoke directly with current staffers.

“They apparently just sort of walked past security and said: ‘Get out of my way,’ and they’re looking for access for the IT systems, as they have in other agencies,” Andrew Rosenberg, another former NOAA official with knowledge of the incident, alleged to Mother Jones.

“They will have access to the entire computer system, a lot of which is confidential information,” Rosenberg added.

It should be noted that Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s second term, called for NOAA to be “broken up and downsized” because its role in promoting climate science was “harmful to U.S. prosperity.”

Musk staffers have also reportedly gained access to payment and contracting systems at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the sources of health insurance for more than 150 million older and poorer Americans, five people with knowledge of the matter told The Washington Post. What Musk is doing with that access is unclear. But he did post on the social media platform he owns that “this is where the big money fraud is happening.” According to The Wall Street Journal, DOGE’s access is “read-only.”

This all comes on the heels of Musk’s other moves, including his sudden attempt to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID — a move that is already wreaking havoc on public health and lifesaving aid around the world — and his reported takeover of the Treasury Department’s payment systems. Trump officials continue to insist Musk’s access to those systems is also read-only.

However, some insiders allege otherwise. Three sources tell Wired that a “25-year-old engineer named Marko Elez, who previously worked for two Elon Musk companies, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the US government.”

“Two of those sources say that Elez’s privileges include the ability not just to read but to write code on two of the most sensitive systems in the US government,” Wired goes on to report. “These systems control, on a granular level, government payments that in their totality amount to more than a fifth of the US economy.”

Both Elez and Musk did not immediately respond to Wired’s requests for comment.

This is just a small fraction of what the world’s richest man — a guy that no one voted for — has done in an attempt to take over the U.S. government. In response, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee actually tried to do some oversight and subpoena Musk to force him to testify to the committee. But the committee’s Republican members refused to allow debate on the motion.

One of the main reasons why this is so important is because Musk, the man Republicans are letting dismantle swaths of the federal government, reportedly has a direct personal and financial interest in dismantling much of the government.

In other words, Musk is a walking conflict of interest.

For example, Musk bragged that he spent last weekend “feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” That came a day after he posted“USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.” What Musk failed to mention is that these comments come months after the agency announced a probe of his company Starlink’s terminals, according to pages that still remain on the agency’s website, as reported on by The Lever.

That investigation was launched with a public announcement last year. Its status is now unknown, but you can take a guess whether it will continue now.

Those Starlink consoles were just a fraction of the business that Musk’s companies do with the federal government. Over the past decade, just two of his companies, Tesla and SpaceX, have won more than $15 billion in government contracts, according to The New York Times.

Most of that comes from his space business, which the Times says “effectively dictates NASA’s rocket launch schedule.” But last September, the Federal Aviation Administration announced plans to fine SpaceX for skirting launch safety rules, including using an “unapproved launch control room.”

Tesla and SpaceX have won more than $15 billion in government contracts, according to The New York Times.

That same day, Musk lashed out on X, saying that “humanity will forever be confined to Earth unless there is radical reform at the FAA!” A week after that, Musk called for the resignation of the FAA’s chief.

Then, last month, in the final days of the Biden administration, a SpaceX starship exploded shortly after takeoff, spreading debris beyond protected areas. There were reports of debris and damage on the Turks and Caicos Islands. Air traffic in the area had to be diverted briefly.

SpaceX announced the rocket had undergone a “rapid unscheduled disassembly.” The FAA immediately grounded SpaceX, barring future launches until an investigation could be conducted. But three days later, Trump became president and the FAA administrator, whom Musk wanted out, announced his resignation.

Given all of that and given Musk’s penchant for exploding rockets (or what he likes to call “rapid unscheduled disassembly”), you would think he is the last guy the FAA would want weighing in on issues of public transportation safety.

But you would think wrong. On Wednesday, the former reality TV star and newly minted Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy posted on Musk’s platform, “Big News — Talked to the DOGE team. They are going to plug in to help upgrade our aviation system.”

We’re witnessing the world’s richest man, who has been empowered to get into the back-end of virtually every facet of the U.S. government, continue to do simply whatever he wants — all while he has billions and billions at stake.

Allison Detzel contributed.

Donald Trump’s interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has made a series of headlines since taking over as the district’s top prosecutor, including his internal probe of the office’s Jan. 6 work and his public display of protection for Trump ally Elon Musk.

A new entry in the And Martin genre is that the lawyer who represented Jan. 6 defendants didn’t officially withdraw from his defense representation before he moved — as the prosecutor — to dismiss the remaining Jan. 6 cases in D.C. That is, Martin was still listed as a Jan. 6 defense counsel on the docket when he moved to dismiss Jan. 6 cases.

A Reuters piece highlighting Martin’s dual roles noted potential ethical issues, as lawyers are generally prohibited “from taking both sides in the same case and U.S. Justice Department regulations require lawyers to step aside from cases involving their former clients for at least a year.”

When Trump granted mass Jan. 6 clemency as one of the first presidential acts of his second term on Jan. 20, he also ordered the attorney general “to pursue dismissal with prejudice to the government of all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” The next day, a filing from the D.C. federal prosecutor’s office, listing Martin as the U.S. attorney, moved to dismiss the case of Joseph Padilla, who was represented by Martin and convicted of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers and other crimes.

It wasn’t until Reuters wrote about the subject that Martin on Wednesday moved to withdraw as Padilla’s attorney, writing to the court in his personal capacity that he hadn’t been recently representing Padilla and that he “requests that the Court grant this motion so the docket may accurately reflect this fact.”

Somehow that wasn’t the end of the matter, because a subsequent entry on the docket from the D.C. court said that Martin’s attorney membership with the court wasn’t up to date, and so he is “not in good standing” and is “not permitted to file.” It further said that “the presiding judge in this case has been notified that you are currently not in good standing to file in this court.”

Whatever the deal is with his membership, that’s all the more reason to have cleared it up before becoming the top prosecutor. Even if it wouldn’t have made a difference to the ultimate outcome of the case going away, since the order came from the president, it’s better to be beyond ethical reproach, rather than raising potential ethical issues, while presiding over law enforcement in the district.

Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin

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 BLN, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

When Merrick Garland was sworn in as the U.S. attorney general, he took the oath of office at the Justice Department, which made sense, given that it was the agency he was poised to lead. When Loretta Lynch was sworn in to the same office, the ceremony was held in the same room at Main Justice. When Eric Holder became attorney general, the scene was the same.

But when Pam Bondi was sworn in as the newest attorney general, she took the oath in the Oval Office — with Donald Trump nearby, looking over her shoulder, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas oversaw the proceedings.

There appeared to be a symbolic significance to the scene, as if the president wanted to leave little doubt that he believed Bondi was an extension of his White House. Of course, this wasn’t just a matter of symbolism: As The Washington Post reportedthe attorney general, in the opening hours of her tenure, made her focus clear.

The nation’s new chief law enforcement official issued 14 “first-day” directives, but Politico highlighted one of the more ridiculous orders.

The attorney general said the working group would be responsible for reviewing instances of what she characterized as “politicized justice.”

At first blush, it might be tempting to just roll one’s eyes at such an endeavor. Congressional Republicans spent two years overseeing a related “weaponization” investigation, and the GOP lawmakers’ investigation proved to be an embarrassing dud. If Bondi and her team want to waste time on a similarly pointless probe, perhaps it’s best to simply shrug and move on?

Maybe, but it might not be that simple.

First, for the Justice Department to investigate its own former special counsel is an unprecedented abuse. There’s literally no evidence of Smith ever having engaged in any wrongdoing, which makes it impossible to defend such a probe. (If Bondi is looking for actual misdeeds, I might recommend that she turn her attention to the convicted felon whose alleged crimes Smith was pursuing.)

Second, the existence of a “Weaponization Working Group” at Main Justice appears intended to perpetuate the absurd myth that federal law enforcement was weaponized during the Biden administration. It was not. That lie might very well make Republicans feel better about the felonies Trump was charged with, but going to war against the recent past is scurrilous.

Third, Bondi’s endeavor isn’t just targeting federal law enforcement. Evidently, Trump’s Justice Department is also targeting state and local prosecutors whom the president sees as villains, further reinforcing what appears obvious: Trump’s so-called revenge tour is ongoing, and the attorney general wants to help advance the campaign.

But I’m also concerned about where all of this is likely to end. If the “Weaponization Working Group” acknowledges reality and concludes that there was no actual “politicized justice” during Joe Biden’s presidency, will that suffice? Or is it more likely that Trump and Bondi will decide that the answer has to match the question in a politically satisfying way, even if that means drawing conclusions that aren’t supported by the evidence?

Steve legs

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”