The Department of Government Efficiency—better known as DOGE and led by Elon Musk—is using artificial intelligence to analyze internal government communications for signs of political dissent against President Trump’s agenda. According to sources cited by Reuters, the surveillance system, already active in several federal agencies, flags emails, messages, and internal documents for review if deemed ideologically noncompliant.
Trump-appointed officials quietly notified selected federal employees that their communications could be subject to automated review. The AI tools are said to identify what DOGE calls “negative influence”—a vague label that sources say includes criticism of Trump’s policies or perceived disloyalty to his administration. Some of the communication within DOGE itself is reportedly taking place via encrypted platforms such as Signal, raising transparency and archiving concerns.
Court Ruling Expands DOGE’s Reach Into Government Data
On April 7, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction that had previously blocked DOGE from accessing sensitive federal databases. The ruling permits the AI surveillance unit to tap into systems maintained by the U.S. Treasury and the Office of Personnel Management.
Among the first departments where the system is active is the Environmental Protection Agency, according to two individuals familiar with the rollout. Other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, are expected to be next. Privacy experts warn the AI tool, paired with DOGE’s access to personal records, may function as a political sorting mechanism embedded within federal infrastructure.
In one instance of resistance, the IRS restricted a DOGE staff member’s access to taxpayer information. According to internal documents, “Should access to I.R.S. systems that contain returns or return information become necessary as part of the detailee’s duties under this agreement, that access shall only be provided if it is anonymized and in a manner that cannot be associated with, directly or indirectly, any taxpayer.”
Security Failures and Inexperienced Hires Undermine Confidence
DOGE’s security posture has not inspired confidence. In February, researchers discovered that DOGE’s public website, built on WordPress, lacked basic protections. The site’s database was accessible without login credentials, allowing public edits to appear live. A banner added by developers read: “THESE ‘EXPERTS’ LEFT THEIR DATABASE OPEN.” The breach remained unresolved for hours.
At launch, DOGE.gov still contained default placeholder text from its WordPress template—a sign of inadequate planning and a rushed deployment. Despite these issues, DOGE continues to acquire sensitive roles in cybersecurity oversight, often displacing agencies like CISA that previously handled federal IT protections.
Staffing has followed an equally contentious path. DOGE had brought on Edward “Big Balls” Coristine, a 19-year-old with ties to “The Com,” an online network known for cyber harassment and doxing. Another addition, Christopher Stanley, had previously leaked a database for a DDoS-for-hire service.
Cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier described the situation in stark terms: “[T]he most alarming aspect isn’t just the access being granted. It’s the systematic dismantling of security measures that would detect and prevent misuse.” He added, “Just as launching a nuclear missile requires two separate officers turning their keys simultaneously, making changes to critical financial systems traditionally requires multiple authorized personnel working in concert.”
Jacob Williams, a former NSA hacker, also raised concerns: “But – and this is key – it’s widely reported (and not denied) that DOGE introduced code changes into multiple federal IT systems. These code changes are not following the normal process for vetting and review given to federal government IT systems.”
Buyouts and Restructuring Trigger Workforce Unrest
DOGE’s political and technical incursions coincide with an aggressive campaign to reduce the size of the federal workforce. On April 8, the Department of Homeland Security launched a voluntary buyout program, offering up to $25,000 to federal workers willing to resign or retire. This builds on earlier efforts aimed at downsizing civil service positions, with DOGE positioned as the architect behind these cost-cutting moves.
Yet analysts suggest that recent economic instability may complicate the plan. A Reuters report indicates that the administration’s new tariff policies have already weakened the private sector job market, making federal workers more hesitant to leave their posts.
Criticism has also emerged over appointments like that of Lew Olowski, a junior lawyer given control of the State Department’s Global Talent Management Bureau. According to multiple sources, his lack of experience has fueled accusations that DOGE values ideological alignment over administrative competence.
Starlink in the West Wing and Musk’s Expanding Influence
DOGE’s growing footprint isn’t confined to data surveillance. In March, Musk’s satellite internet company Starlink was installed in the White House, reportedly to improve connectivity in older areas of the building. The decision drew skepticism, especially since Washington, D.C. already has advanced fiber infrastructure. Experts called the move unnecessary and politically motivated.
Former Commerce Department official Evan Feinman warned that such deployments may shift public resources toward private vendors with close government ties. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, on the other hand, praised Starlink’s role in expanding rural broadband—further reinforcing concerns of regulatory favoritism.
Digital Carelessness at the Highest Levels
On March 25, it was revealed that top Trump officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, used Signal—a consumer encrypted messaging app—to coordinate military action in Yemen. The group discussed targets and timing of airstrikes in a chat that accidentally included the Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.
While Signal encrypts messages end-to-end using the Signal Protocol, it lacks essential features for government communications such as identity verification, access control, and audit trails. Security experts argue that such tools are inappropriate for classified decision-making environments, regardless of their encryption strength.
“It was a very serious mistake that could violate espionage laws,” former CIA Director Leon Panetta said. Other lawmakers added that similar conduct by junior officials would result in clearance revocation. The administration has defended the move, with Ratcliffe asserting that the chats were permissible under Biden-era rules if recorded, and Tulsi Gabbard claiming the material wasn’t technically classified.
This incident underscores the broader issue: shortcuts in digital protocol and blurred lines between public governance and private enterprise are increasingly shaping how decisions in the Trump administration are made—and now, how they’re monitored.
