Elon Musk’s bold moves shake Washington: A two-week Federal shakeup

In a stunning display of executive influence, Elon Musk and his allies have triggered a whirlwind of changes across key federal agencies, leaving many in Washington questioning the limits of power held by an unelected businessman. Over the past two weeks, Musk’s inner circle has swept into departments with unprecedented authority, challenging established norms and raising legal and ethical concerns.


Musk’s influence on government operations has been hard to miss. In a series of rapid-fire moves, personnel aligned with Musk secured full access to the Treasury Department’s payment system, threatened to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and rolled out what appeared to be a “buyout” offer for federal employees. In many agencies, seasoned civil servants were sidelined or even locked out of their offices and computer systems. These maneuvers represent a significant shift toward expanding executive power, echoing promises made during former President Donald Trump’s successful 2024 campaign.

Musk, the world’s richest man, now has tens of billions of dollars in government contracts and unprecedented insight into the inner workings of federal operations. “I have a hard time thinking of anyone who has exerted the kind of power and control that he has over government operations in the last week,” said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor specializing in government ethics.


In a recent announcement from the White House, Musk was designated a “special government employee,” a temporary role that affords him considerable leeway without making him a full-time federal employee. This designation, reserved for those expected to work for 130 days or less in a year, has sparked questions about potential conflicts of interest. As a special government employee, Musk is bound by federal conflict-of-interest rules that prohibit participation in matters affecting his financial interests. However, enforcement of these rules now rests solely with the Justice Department under the current Trump administration.

Questions still remain about Musk’s role in the administration, including whether he has been formally appointed as the administrator of the DOGE entity—a newly created agency born from a January 20 executive order. Uncertainty also clouds the employment status of other appointees linked to the DOGE team. Some have been added to federal employee databases with official government emails, while others continue to work under visitor badges, leaving agency staff in the dark about their colleagues’ roles and responsibilities.


A major target of Musk’s overhaul appears to be the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The agency, long responsible for managing federal human resources, has seen a cascade of drastic changes. In recent days, federal employees have received mass emails urging them to resign and accept a buyout, a tactic reminiscent of previous rounds of corporate restructuring seen at Musk’s private companies.

Meanwhile, senior staff at OPM have been forced to identify 30% of their workforce for near-term cuts, with long-term plans hinting at a reduction of up to 70% of staff. Such drastic measures have raised alarms about the agency’s capacity to handle its critical responsibilities, including benefits administration, services, and oversight. Insiders have reported that senior career employees are being physically relocated and stripped of access to internal data systems, a move that has intensified fears regarding the security of sensitive personal information.


Perhaps one of the most dramatic episodes unfolded at USAID, the agency responsible for administering billions in humanitarian aid and development funding. Following Trump’s inauguration, key career staff at USAID were suddenly placed on leave, and the entire executive team along with every deputy was abruptly removed from their posts. Sources indicate that Musk-aligned personnel attempted to storm the USAID headquarters, demanding access to the agency’s security systems and personnel files—even threatening to call U.S. Marshals when met with resistance.

Musk has even publicly claimed that President Trump agreed to shut down USAID, a move that has since been countered by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who announced himself as the agency’s acting administrator. Critics have argued that the president lacks the unilateral legal authority to dismantle an agency whose existence is enshrined in federal law and funded by congressional appropriations.


Elsewhere in Washington, the General Services Administration (GSA) is undergoing its own transformation. Charged with overseeing federal real estate and procurement, the GSA has seen new leadership usher in an era of increased efficiency. New appointees have urged employees to adopt measures such as purchasing mattresses and extended equipment to facilitate round-the-clock operations. This initiative, aimed at streamlining government processes, has nonetheless raised questions about conflicts of interest—especially since some of Musk’s closest associates now have access to sensitive and classified acquisitions information tied to billions of dollars in government contracts.


Not to be overlooked, the Treasury Department has also experienced significant disruption. Following the abrupt departure of its top civil servant, DOGE appointees were granted unrestricted access to the federal payments system. Musk has publicly defended his intervention, asserting that payment officers at Treasury were routinely approving transactions—even those linked to fraudulent or terrorist organizations—without a proper vetting process. These revelations have spurred legal challenges, with lawsuits alleging a massive breach of privacy and unauthorized access to sensitive government data.


In just a fortnight, the cumulative effect of Musk’s interventions has sent shockwaves through the federal government. From uprooting established civil service norms to challenging the foundational structures of agencies like USAID and OPM, Musk’s actions are reshaping the landscape of American governance. Critics, including legal experts and federal employees, warn that these moves not only violate established procedures and laws but also risk undermining the security and efficacy of essential government services.

As the legal battles mount and the nation watches closely, one thing is clear: the traditional boundaries between private enterprise and public governance are being redrawn in real time. Whether this bold experiment in executive authority will lead to lasting reforms or set the stage for further legal entanglements remains to be seen. For now, Washington finds itself in the midst of an unprecedented era of change—one that challenges the very foundations of federal operation and oversight.