The White House has made it clear: Elon Musk may hold the title of “senior advisor to the president,” but he has no formal authority to make government decisions. Yet, the billionaire’s involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has sparked concerns about the growing influence of unelected figures in American governance. Musk, alongside former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, was initially named to spearhead the initiative under Donald Trump’s administration. However, a recent White House document disputes Musk’s supposed authority, contradicting Trump’s public statements about his role.
At the Super Bowl, Trump hinted at Musk’s reach, stating that he would soon assign him to assess other federal agencies, including the Department of Education and the military. Despite this, Joshua Fisher, director of the White House Office of Administration, confirmed in federal court that Musk is not the official administrator of DOGE, though he declined to reveal who actually holds that position. This ambiguity raises pressing questions about the legitimacy and transparency of Musk’s involvement in federal policymaking, particularly as DOGE becomes central to controversial budget cuts and foreign aid reductions.
Musk, for his part, has dismissed concerns over his influence, arguing that government bureaucracy is an “unelected, unconstitutional fourth branch” that holds more power than elected officials. His rhetoric aligns with Trump’s broader effort to reshape Washington by sidelining long-standing governmental institutions. However, the lack of clarity surrounding DOGE and Musk’s real authority has led many to worry about a dangerous precedent: a billionaire with no electoral mandate dictating government policy. His assurances of “common sense controls” and “fiscal responsibility” do little to ease concerns about potential overreach.
For marginalized communities, including LGBTQ+ individuals, the implications of such governance shake-ups could be severe. With Trump’s administration already targeting LGBTQ+ rights, Musk’s involvement in reshaping federal funding priorities—especially regarding social services—raises fears of further marginalization. Historically, underfunded LGBTQ+ programs, including healthcare initiatives and housing support, could see even greater financial instability if government efficiency is redefined in a way that prioritizes budget cuts over community needs.
The bigger question remains: if Musk does not officially lead DOGE, who does? And if he wields no real authority, why does Trump repeatedly suggest otherwise? The White House’s denial may not be enough to quell the concerns of those who see Musk’s increasing entanglement with the federal government as an alarming shift toward corporate-dominated politics.