While many conservatives are over the moon at the uncovering of fraud and corruption that Elon Musk's DOGE has uncovered, including fellow Alor.org bloggers, there is a case for concern, that there could be an agenda of Musk behind these scenes. Dr Naomi Wolf has given the most detailed critique of DOGE that I have seen, and it is linked below. In short Musk' DOGE could give him information that will increase his power beyond even President Trump himself!
By way of summary, President Donald Trump recently stated that the White House would ensure Elon Musk does not act independently, claiming that Musk would need approval from the government for any actions that might raise conflicts. Trump emphasized that Musk would report to the administration, asserting that the White House holds ultimate decision-making power. However, this assertion raises a significant question: can Trump realistically ensure that no conflicts arise? The scale and complexity of the data involved, as well as the substantial and legally binding obligations Musk and his associates have to their own companies and investors, make it difficult to believe that such oversight is feasible.
One of the main concerns is the nature of Musk's involvement. If Musk's role was purely to analyse government datasets and suggest improvements or cuts—a reasonable task given his skills—then why did he need to bring along cloud computing experts and engineers? Cloud computing CEOs store vast amounts of data, and engineers build and modify systems, yet Musk's team seemed to be involved in far more than simple data analysis. Some of the engineers, reportedly young and inexperienced, allegedly plugged their personal devices into government systems, raising serious cybersecurity risks. One of them, a teenager, had even leaked internal proprietary data in a previous role. These kinds of breaches could expose highly sensitive government data to malware and cybercriminals, and the mere fact that some of Musk's team had unauthorized access to government networks raises alarms.
Furthermore, it is suggested that Musk's team may have gone beyond reviewing the data to potentially copying or altering it. If they were granted write privileges on government systems, this would allow them to make changes to the records, not just observe them. The data involved may include valuable intellectual property (IP) that was developed with taxpayer money. This IP could be siphoned off by Musk's team for private interests, possibly even for Musk's other ventures. This concern is compounded by reports that Musk's team may have accessed highly sensitive systems like tax payment software and iterations of artificial intelligence (AI) built by the government. There is no clear evidence that this data was being used to uncover wasteful spending, but it could have been used for Musk's competitive advantage, particularly in the development of his own tax payment systems or to disrupt AI competitors.
In the midst of this controversy, Musk's ambitions in AI become even more troubling. He has bid a staggering $97.4 billion to acquire OpenAI, a company he has been closely associated with. Additionally, a marketing campaign launched during the Super Bowl aimed to promote AI as a powerful tool for the American public. AI requires vast amounts of data to function, and the concern is that Musk, with his access to government datasets, could wield an unprecedented level of control over both the public and private sectors. Through his AI-driven approach to analyzing government data, Musk could potentially automate decisions regarding government spending, create financial blacklists, and make sweeping cuts to programs without human oversight. This AI-first approach could transform the government into an entity governed more by algorithms than by elected officials, effectively eliminating the need for human accountability.
The risks extend beyond mere automation, Dr Wolf argues. Musk has proposed strengthening the "Do Not Pay" list, which blocks payments to entities deemed fraudulent. While fraud prevention is important, Musk's proposal to update the list daily using AI could lead to the overreach of automation. Financial blacklisting could happen without due process, and legitimate entities might find themselves mistakenly flagged and denied payments. The criteria for being placed on the list could be manipulated, and once someone is added, there may be no recourse to appeal. This kind of unchecked power, if wielded by Musk's AI systems, could result in the financial exclusion of anyone, from ordinary citizens to high-profile political figures, without transparency or accountability.
The potential for this kind of control over government data is not just a theoretical concern, Dr Wolf states. With the ability to combine various datasets—ranging from tax records to medical histories—Musk could create a powerful "control grid." By aggregating and filtering this information, Musk could gain insight into vulnerabilities across the entire population. The implications are chilling: Musk could out-compete businesses, target political rivals, and even manipulate markets or public opinion by controlling access to vital government information. He would essentially have the power to create a social credit system akin to those used in authoritarian regimes like China, where personal data is combined to form a comprehensive profile of each citizen. In Musk's case, this would not just be about monitoring behavior—it would be about controlling it.
This vision of a future where AI governs is even more troubling when we consider Musk's proposed "everything app," which would integrate government data with payment systems and social media. If Musk can access and manipulate such sensitive information, the ability to target and control individuals becomes almost limitless. In such a system, human accountability would be virtually non-existent. If someone's rights are violated by an AI system, there would be no clear person or entity to hold accountable. This could leave ordinary citizens with little recourse to challenge decisions made by an all-powerful AI that is both controlling and invisible.
Once sensitive data is accessed, it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to completely erase it. Even if copies of the data were destroyed, it could have already been distributed to other servers or stored in proprietary clouds. The problem lies in the fact that the technology involved is advancing faster than the legal and governmental frameworks designed to regulate it. Judges and lawmakers simply don't have a full grasp of how AI and digital technology work, which leaves them ill-equipped to address the complex security breaches that have already occurred.
In this scenario, President Trump's initial goal of using Musk to disrupt the Deep State could unintentionally lead to a loss of control over American governance itself. While Trump may have seen Musk as an ally in his battle to diminish bureaucratic power, he may have unwittingly opened a door to a future where Musk, not elected officials, holds the keys to the government's most sensitive data. This could lead to the rise of a technocratic system where Musk's AI-driven control grid dictates the course of the nation, and the concept of democracy, as we know it, could be fundamentally altered.
Ultimately, the fear is not just that Musk may become too powerful, but that the very structure of governance could change in ways that make it harder for citizens to have a voice. Dr Wolf concludes that if unchecked, Musk could become a greater threat to freedom than even the Deep State.
This all involves speculation about Musk's motives. Perhaps he will do the right thing and destroy the Deep State without becoming a technocratic ruler of all the Earth, an autistic Genghis Khan, as I have argued in another article! However the lust for power, once one has a taste of it, is likely to push Musk into the orbit of beingwhat I have also described as the ultimate James Bond villain.
https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/the-sack-of-rome-elon-musks-digital