How Is DOGE Abusing Its Power?

While both President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have claimed that DOGE operates with “maximum transparency,” the administration has offered little insight into its operations beyond its vague directive to “maximize efficiency.” In fact, to shield the initiative from public scrutiny, Trump strategically rebranded the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) as DOGE and declared it “established in the Executive Office of the President.” Previously, the USDS operated under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and was subject to Title 5 regulations, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, if DOGE is no longer under the OMB and now functions within the Executive Office of the President, it would instead be subject to Title 3 and the Presidential Records Act, exempting it from FOIA disclosure requirements.

DOGE itself has also ignored demands to preserve its records under the Federal Records Act, and agencies have failed to provide meaningful oversight of DOGE’s activities despite the sensitive nature of the data it manages. This lack of transparency and oversight has obstructed public understanding, raised serious concerns about accountability, and intensified fears that DOGE is breaking the law. As the Center for American Progress noted in a prior analysis, DOGE’s actions may be infringing on laws such as the Privacy Act of 1974.

• How did DOGE ensure that operatives still employed by Musk-owned companies—such as SpaceX, X, and the Boring Company—adhered to federal regulations and avoided conflicts of interest while accessing sensitive government records?
• Were any federal data transferred to private companies, either for commercial gain or as part of an undisclosed agreement? If so, how was this facilitated and documented?
• Did any private companies affiliated with DOGE operatives receive privileged access to federal databases or information from such databases, either directly or indirectly?
• If DOGE provided any external third party with access to data, were any records kept? Were any legal agreements executed?
• Were federal data transferred to privately owned computers or cloud servers, including but not limited to Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing service? If so, which ones received data, and were private companies given access for AI processing, analysis, or training purposes?

LS: The obvious use case, it seems to me, is loading looted Federal data into AI training sets. This goes unmentioned.