Elon Musk’s Push for Government Transparency vs. the Secrecy of His Cost-Cutting Initiative
In October, Elon Musk took to the stage in Pennsylvania during a campaign rally for Donald J. Trump, where he championed the idea of government transparency. Musk argued that nearly all government records should be made public, stating on social media, “There should be no need for FOIA requests.” He believes that all government data should be default public to ensure maximum transparency. However, the actions of his own cost-cutting initiative, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), suggest a different approach.
While Musk has been vocal about transparency, the White House has shielded his office, the United States DOGE Service, from public records requests and judicial intervention until at least 2034. This is done by classifying the documents it produces and receives as presidential records under the Presidential Records Act. This designation means that these records are not accessible to the public for at least five years after the president leaves office. Katie Miller, an employee working on the efficiency initiative, confirmed that Musk’s office has been reorganized under the Executive Office of the President, making it subject to the Presidential Records Act.
The Implications of the Presidential Records Act
The Presidential Records Act shields all documents, communication trails, and records created by the president, his advisers, and staff from public access until five years after the end of the president’s term. While the law requires presidents to preserve a broad set of written materials created during their duties, it also allows presidents to dispose of records after obtaining written approval from the National Archives’ archivist. Recently, Donald Trump fired the nation’s archivist, Colleen Shogan, without providing a cause or reason, raising concerns about the preservation of records.
Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman representing Musk’s team, defended the initiative, saying it aligns with its purpose of advising and assisting the president in making the government more efficient. However, critics argue that the lack of transparency surrounding DOGE undermines the principles of accountability and openness that Musk has publicly endorsed. Legal experts note that presidents have near-complete discretion over presidential records, making it difficult for the public to hold them accountable if records are not preserved.
Criticism and Concerns Over Lack of Transparency
Critics are concerned that Musk’s cost-cutting initiative is being insulated from public scrutiny, with watchdog groups likely to challenge the secrecy in court. During Trump’s first term, federal courts upheld the president’s authority over presidential records, ruling against nonprofits that sought to stop Trump’s advisers from using private messaging apps that delete messages automatically. This precedent raises alarms about the lack of oversight structures if Trump fails to preserve records from Musk’s initiative.
Experts like Anne Weismann, a law professor at George Washington University, warn that this lack of transparency allows the administration to wield significant power without judicial or public oversight. “They are trying to insulate this entity and the enormous power it appears to be wielding from any kind of judicial interference and public scrutiny,” Weismann said. If Trump chooses to destroy records from Musk’s initiative, there is little recourse for the public unless Congress overhauls the Presidential Records Act.
A History of Disregard for Government Transparency
Neither Trump nor Musk has demonstrated a strong commitment to preserving government records or ensuring public access to them. During Trump’s first term, former White House staff members reported that he had a habit of tearing up documents, leaving them shredded on the floor. Politico reported that some officials even had to tape back together documents to comply with federal laws. Similarly, Musk’s company SpaceX has faced allegations of attempting to avoid public records requests, with employees declaring that certain communications were exempt due to “confidential business information and trade secrets.”
Lauren Harper, who leads efforts for a more transparent federal government at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted that while trade secrets are a legitimate reason for withholding records, blanket declarations by private companies do not suffice. Such broad declarations could be seen as an attempt to intimidate federal officials responsible for releasing documents. SpaceX did not respond to multiple requests for comment on these allegations.
Potential Legal Challenges and Workarounds
While the White House claims that Musk’s team is insulated from public records requests, the law provides a potential remedy for accountability nonprofits seeking records from DOGE members. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), federal courts have ruled that White House entities advising the president are not subject to FOIA. However, critics argue that if Musk’s team is acting as a federal agency rather than merely advising the president, their records could be made public under FOIA.
Jason R. Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives, said that if courts determine that Musk’s team is functioning like a federal agency, their records would be eligible for immediate public access. This could result in the release of memos, spreadsheets, and even emails from Musk and his colleagues. However, the federal government has historically been slow to fulfill FOIA requests, making this process cumbersome and ineffective.
Watchdog Groups Take Action
Nonprofit watchdogs like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Center for Biological Diversity have already filed public records requests related to Musk’s team. Both groups have stated that they will file lawsuits against the Trump administration if it does not respond to their requests. Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said, “I agree with Elon Musk because everything should be transparent, but that’s the opposite of what we’re getting.”
The lack of transparency surrounding DOGE highlights the challenges of balancing cost-cutting measures with the need for accountability and public trust. While Musk’s initiative aims to make the government more efficient, its secrecy raises questions about the integrity of its operations and whether it truly serves the public interest. As watchdog groups continue to push for answers, the courts may ultimately decide whether Musk’s initiative is subject to public scrutiny.
