Could Musk’s AI Harvest Government Data Without Accountability?

Elon Musk's government efficiency team is quietly pushing his Grok AI chatbot into federal agencies while he profits from every government contract. The move raises serious questions about conflicts of interest and puts sensitive data on millions of Americans at risk.

Three sources inside DOGE tell Reuters the team uses a custom version of Grok to analyze government data and write reports. They feed federal datasets into the system and get instant analysis back. The practice gives Musk's xAI company access to information his competitors can't touch.

DOGE staff also pressed Department of Homeland Security officials to adopt Grok without proper approval. DHS handles border security, immigration enforcement, and cybersecurity. When federal employees officially use Grok, the government pays Musk's company for access.

This creates a clear financial conflict. Ethics experts say it could violate criminal laws that bar officials from decisions that benefit them financially. "This gives the appearance that DOGE is pressuring agencies to use software to enrich Musk," said Richard Painter, former ethics counsel to President Bush.

Data Security Risks Mount

The data security risks run deep. DOGE has accessed heavily protected federal databases containing personal information on millions of Americans. Privacy advocates warn that feeding this sensitive information into Grok could lead to data breaches. Grok's parent company says it may monitor users for "business purposes."

The irony stings. Early reports showed DOGE initially used Meta's AI instead of Grok because Musk's product wasn't ready for government use. Now his team actively promotes it across agencies while eliminating other programs without proper oversight.

How It Started

DOGE started by using whatever AI tools worked. They deployed Meta's Llama 2 to sort through federal worker emails, including responses to the infamous "Fork in the Road" resignation message. The system ran locally, which reduced but didn't eliminate security concerns.

The team also eliminated Census Bureau surveys worth $16.5 million without following required public comment processes. They axed programs that tracked everything from jail inmate data to internet usage patterns. Data users worry about the health of America's statistical infrastructure.

Meanwhile, DOGE staff attempted to train AI systems to identify employee communications showing disloyalty to Trump's agenda. At one Defense Department agency, workers were told algorithmic tools now monitor their computer activity. Using AI to identify personal political beliefs could violate civil service laws.

The Expansion Team

The push extends beyond individual agencies. Two DOGE staffers, Kyle Schutt and Edward Coristine, lead the AI expansion effort. Coristine, who goes by "Big Balls" online, is 19 years old and one of DOGE's most visible members.

Congress has demanded investigations, arguing AI isn't ready for high-stakes government decisions without proper oversight. Lawmakers worry about data breaches and point out that AI systems often make errors and show bias.

Following the Timeline

The timeline tells the story. In January, DOGE used Meta's AI because Grok wasn't available as a service. By March, they were pushing Grok at DHS. Now Microsoft hosts Grok models in its Azure cloud service, making them more accessible to government agencies.

Even as Musk claims to step back from day-to-day DOGE operations, his team remains embedded throughout the federal government. They've moved beyond theatrical cost-cutting to systematic data collection and analysis. Courts have struck down some DOGE actions, but the policies remain with alternative ways to implement them.

Russell Vought, architect of Project 2025, will continue DOGE's mission through the Office of Management and Budget. "We're going to use all of our executive tools to make those savings permanent," Vought said in March.

The broader pattern emerges clearly. DOGE has evolved from a splashy efficiency drive into a tool for government restructuring. It collects and combines data that was never meant to work together. It uses that information to surveil immigrants and assist with voter fraud investigations.

What started as opportunistic use of available AI tools has become a strategic push to embed Musk's products throughout government. The financial benefits flow directly to companies he owns while creating potential competitive advantages over rivals like OpenAI and Anthropic.

Privacy advocates call it one of the most serious data threats they've seen. "Given the scale of data that DOGE has amassed and the concerns about porting that data into software like Grok, this is about as serious a privacy threat as you get," said Albert Fox Cahn of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.

The defense from DOGE and DHS remains thin. A DHS spokesperson denied that DOGE pressured staff to use any particular tools. But two sources say DOGE representatives pushed DHS divisions to test Grok for tasks from immigration analysis to budget forecasting, even after DHS blocked commercial AI platforms over data leak fears.

The legal framework around government AI use remains murky. Federal agencies typically require multiple approvals and oversight for data sharing to prevent unauthorized disclosure. By sidestepping those checks, DOGE risks exposing personal details of millions of Americans while handing xAI information unavailable to competitors.

The stakes keep rising. Federal workers describe a climate of surveillance and uncertainty as AI tools monitor their communications and computer activity. The technology isn't ready for such high-stakes deployment, but the rollout continues anyway.

Musk may be the first government official to use his position to directly promote his own AI product to federal agencies. The precedent it sets for data security and conflicts of interest could reshape how government works for years to come.

Why this matters:

• Musk has created the first clear case of a government official using public power to directly benefit his private AI business
• The rapid deployment of unvetted AI systems across sensitive government functions sets a dangerous precedent that prioritizes efficiency over security and legal compliance

Read on, my dear:

• Reuters: Exclusive: Musk’s DOGE expanding his Grok AI in US government, raising conflict concerns

Q: How much money could Musk make from government contracts for Grok? A: While specific pricing isn't public, enterprise AI contracts typically run $20-50 per user monthly. With millions of federal employees, government-wide adoption could generate hundreds of millions annually for xAI, especially as agencies scale usage for data analysis tasks.

Q: What sensitive data has DOGE already fed into Grok? A: DOGE has accessed federal databases containing personal information on millions of Americans, including Census data, immigration records, and federal employee communications. Sources say they've used Grok to analyze everything from border security data to internal emails about employee loyalty.

Q: Can federal employees refuse to use Grok without facing retaliation? A: Federal civil service protections should prevent direct retaliation, but workers report a climate of surveillance where AI monitors their computer activity and communications. Refusing to use mandated tools could be framed as insubordination, creating a gray area for employee rights.

Q: How does Grok's government use give xAI an advantage over OpenAI and Anthropic? A: Government contracts provide steady revenue and exclusive access to federal datasets competitors can't touch. This data could help xAI train more capable models while building relationships that lock out rivals from lucrative federal AI contracts.

Q: What happens to government data after Grok processes it? A: Grok's terms state xAI may monitor usage for "business purposes," but specifics remain unclear. Privacy advocates worry processed government data could improve xAI's commercial products or be vulnerable to breaches, as federal security protocols don't fully apply to private AI systems.

Q: Which agencies beyond DHS are testing or using Grok? A: Sources indicate DOGE pressed multiple agencies including Defense Department divisions, though specific departments remain unnamed. The push appears coordinated across agencies handling sensitive functions from immigration to cybersecurity to budget analysis.

Q: Could this violate federal procurement laws? A: Ethics experts say yes - pushing agencies to adopt Grok without competitive bidding or proper approval processes likely violates procurement regulations. The financial benefit to Musk could also trigger criminal conflict-of-interest statutes that bar officials from decisions enriching themselves.

Q: What oversight exists for AI use in federal agencies? A: Current oversight remains minimal. Agencies typically require multiple approvals for new technology adoption, but DOGE appears to bypass these checks. Congress has demanded investigations, but no comprehensive AI governance framework exists for federal use.

Q: How permanent are these AI implementations? A: Even if DOGE dissolves, Russell Vought plans to continue its mission through the Office of Management and Budget using "executive tools" to make changes permanent. Once agencies integrate AI systems, reversing course becomes technically and bureaucratically difficult.