Why 'DOGE' is an 'insider threat'

Trump-Musk efforts to dismantle agencies, seize appropriated funds & summarily end careers, are unlawful and directly violate the Constitution. DOGE risks reportedly go far beyond that, however.

There are many questions swirling around the effort by Elon Musk to access sensitive US government data systems, mine personnel records, and remove dedicated civil servants from their positions. Among these:

1. Why did Trump not attempt to create an official role for someone who would have so much reach into the affairs of government?

2. Does Elon Musk not have staggering conflicts of interest, given he has not given up leadership of his companies?

3. What authority allows Musk to do what he is doing?

4. What authority allows the President to grant him such authority?

5. Are sensitive data systems being put at risk?

6. If so, what are the implications for the integrity of government, for the rule of law, and for national security?

7. Why does even the White House put the team Musk leads, the “Department of Government Efficiency”, in quotes?

There are reports suggesting DOGE operatives may have connected outside hardware to sensitive data systems. A federal judge blocked DOGE access to sensitive Treasury Department data systems and ordered that any copies must be destroyed, citing risk of irreparable harm. (Image is representative and does not depict DOGE activities.)

The simple answers are:

1. Trump did not give Musk a role that would have Constitutional authority or require Senate approval, because:

   1. The President cannot unilaterally create such a role.

   2. Musk is not a forensic accountant, nor does his plan seem to include hiring any, which would raise questions about his fitness for the role he and Trump say he has been given.

   3. Musk would have to disclose information about his finances and would have to take action to eliminate conflicts of interest.

2. Yes, Musk has staggering conflicts of interest, including investigations, lawsuits, or enforcement actions affecting his companies.

3. There is no lawful authority for Musk to do what he is doing.

4. There is no lawful authority for the President to grant him authority to do what he is doing.

5. Yes, sensitive data systems are being put at risk, in numerous ways.

6. Government cannot function properly or efficiently when:

   1. Agency directors are not allowed to implement their mission;

   2. Unauthorized tech teams are allowed to remove leadership;

   3. People involved in gathering intelligence may have their names leaked;

   4. Anti-corruption watchdogs are removed;

   5. Investigations into unlawful activity are put on hold or cancelled, with no legal basis;

   6. Agencies with global reach, which represent the best examples of American investment in the wellbeing of others and in the stability of countries and regions, are shut down, with their staff menaced and defamed by people acting outside the law;

   7. There appears to be a coordinated effort to remove any person, mechanism, or institution, that would prioritize the rule of law over the whims of a cabal operating outside the law.

7. Even the White House puts “Department of Government Efficiency” in quotes for three reasons that are easily discernible:

   1. It does not really exist.

   2. Its name is based on a Twitter joke Elon Musk turned into a fake cryptocurrency.

   3. The White House has a political, practical, and legal interest in not allowing Musk to appear more powerful than the President.

The Treasury Department has labeled some of the activities of DOGE to be an “insider threat”, meaning they put the security and integrity of data at risk and could remove, corrupt, or leak information to unauthorized persons or entities, including potentially foreign powers. It is important to note that security concerns do not indicate wrongdoing, nor is wrongdoing required for courts or agencies to act against security risks.

---

'The largest IT security breach in history'

DOGE plans for AI government alarm experts on rights & security

---

There are illicit connections to Russia, which are raising red flags for observers both inside and outside of government. Last year, it was revealed Elon Musk had been meeting secretly with Vladimir Putin since at least 2022. In 2022, Putin—the dictator of Russia, who murders and disappears anyone who opposes him, including with chemical weapons attacks on NATO allied soil—launched a full-scale criminal invasion of Ukraine.

It is known that at least once during Putin’s campaign of war crimes in Ukraine, Musk personally intervened to block Ukraine from using Starlink internet service to coordinate an attack on Russian positions on the Crimean peninsula. Meanwhile, there are reports Russia has been using Starlink systems to support its operations inside Ukraine.

Musk is not the only connection to Russia, however. At least one of the DOGE operatives identified in press reports has registered domain names in Russia, which are reportedly used to spread information on social media. No government agency was able to review this conflict before this individual was given access to some of the country’s most sensitive data.

Trump administration connections to Russia are front page news, again. This week, Donald Trump met by phone with Vladimir Putin and effectively reversed U.S. efforts to punish Russia for illegally invading Ukraine. Vice President J.D. Vance also refused to give U.S. support to an international agreement to ensure AI-powered weapons systems remain under control of human beings. Vance even rejected the discussion of AI safety.

Musk is also linked to Saudi Arabia, which helped him to finance his purchase of Twitter, which Musk now calls X, and is reportedly investing in his xAI venture. It is not known how many times investors linked to the Saudi regime have intervened to assist Musk in keeping his businesses afloat, but this has long been a concern to experts who question the wisdom of allowing his companies to have access to classified information involved in aerospace and Defense contracts and to control tens of thousands of satellites providing interent infrastructure.

Musk also has deep, close, and troubling personal and commercial ties to China. As Fast Company reports:

While most American companies do not—or cannot—operate in China, Musk’s Tesla certainly does. In 2024, the electric carmaker sold 657,000 carsin China, up 8.8% from the year before. It also operates massive car and battery manufacturing facilities in Shanghai. The company received “several unusual concessions” from the Chinese government [which lets] Tesla operate … without a joint venture with a Chinese partner, favorable loans, and “a discounted corporate tax rate of 15% in China, something that could change quickly if Musk were to anger the Chinese government.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, raised the alarm to the Treasury Secretary, writing:

The press has previously reported that Musk was denied a high-level clearance to access the government’s most sensitive secrets.2 I am concerned Musk’s enormous business operations in China -- a country whose intelligence agencies have stolen vast amounts of sensitive data about Americans, including U.S. government employee data by hacking U.S. government systems -- endangers U.S. cybersecurity and creates conflicts of interest that make his access to these systems a national security risk.

At this writing, Musk has said he wants to “delete entire agencies” from the U.S. Government. This statement appears to reveal an intent to violate federal law, court orders, and the Constitution itself. Article I of the Constitution grants Congress sole lawmaking and budgetary authority, so even the President has no legal authority to close an agency created by Congress without an act of Congress.

Just Security is tracking the many lawsuits challenging Trump’s and Musk’s efforts to expand executive authority beyond existing law.