On Monday, Democrats finally returned from the weekend and took aim at Elon Musk’s DOGE unit for hacking into federal computer systems at sites including Treasury and USAID. Chuck Schumer’s obsessive focus on tariff-driven inflation mercifully ended after Trump backed down from his trade war. This illustrates how Schumer is a serious downgrade from Harry Reid. But he’s finally focused on the problem. He gave a good floor speech laying out the problem and promising action.
The most immediately meaningful step of the day came from former Pomona philosophy major and current US Senator Brian Schatz: “Until and unless this brazenly authoritarian action is reversed and USAID is functional again, I will be placing a blanket hold on all of the Trump administration’s State Department nominees.” Cabinet-level appointees like Marco Rubio can’t be subject to holds, but this will block undersecretaries and other underlings. Last year I gave Schatz’ Leadership PAC $2500, so he’d have more money to buy influence in the caucus, and he’s using the power well.
Musk’s control of these computer systems can’t last long, because the collective power of the entities that don’t want him to have control is vast. Do the Detroit automakers and Musk’s tech industry rivals want the Tesla CEO controlling payment systems? The nation’s air traffic controllers received his job-threatening buyout offers the day before the DCA crash, and nobody associated with aviation can want further nudging from him. Whatever the Supreme Court may have been aiming to do in previous decisions, an AI-loving CEO who immediately started hacking all the government systems to get his way is likely too chaotic to serve those aims.
Many people are calling Musk’s action a coup, but it’s really more of a hack. If one of us somehow hacked into Treasury Department computer systems, that would be legally the same as what Musk and the DOGE team is doing. Congress has the power to determine how federal money is spent. Billionaire friends of the President do not, and no legal process has empowered Musk to do so. Whatever impunity the Supreme Court gave the President doesn’t apply to him. He can steal data and create massive disruptions by blocking payments, but that doesn’t change legal property rights. It just means he’s committing a giant crime.
Lawsuits to stop Musk are already filed, and more to punish him will likely appear soon. The Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have filed suit in to keep Musk out of the federal system. Trump can pardon Musk for crimes, but not for the vast civil liability he incurs from hacking into many people’s private data. A suit for data theft at the level of the entire US population could wipe out even Musk’s massive wealth.
For now he’s the richest man in the world. That combined with billionaire privilege and exceptionally powerful friends gives him powerful defenses against attack. But all that power is fragile. His money is dependent on the market continuing to price Tesla at exorbitant levels. His political connections depend on his relation to Trump, and if Trump decides he’s a political liability and turns on him it’s over.
Two stories of the last few years come to mind. Sam Bankman-Fried peaked in a similar way, and Musk has been even more flamboyant in his criminality. I wonder if Musk is taking dopamine reuptake inhibitors like SBF did – compulsive gambling and other risky behavior are potential side effects. There’s also Vladimir Putin, who followed his success in helping Trump win an election with a disastrous invasion of Ukraine. Men don’t need weird Bay Area research chemical to wreck themselves with mad gambles – yes-men and ludicrous power may be enough.
