In a development that has left Washington insiders both fascinated and uneasy, Elon Musk’s expanding footprint within the federal government is beginning to resemble more of a quiet consolidation of influence than a mere push for reform.
Rumblings of secret access, political favoritism, and stealth appointments are circulating, as Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency—once viewed as largely symbolic—now finds itself wielding unprecedented authority over some of the country’s most sensitive financial infrastructure.
With one of Musk’s rising protégés potentially gaining access to IRS operations, the question many are now asking is whether this is truly about reform—or about control.
Musk’s DOGE Gains Power After Court Decision, Raising Alarms Over IRS Involvement
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Musk-led initiative, has secured expanded entry into the financial systems of various federal departments after a key court ruling on Tuesday. At the center of this development is software engineer Gavin Kliger, a close ally of Musk, who is reportedly set to acquire access to highly confidential IRS databases.
According to The New York Times, Kliger is being considered for a senior advisory position to the acting commissioner of the IRS, although his official responsibilities are still being finalized.
This progression has set off alarm bells among regulatory and legal observers, who warn that such a move could potentially allow unelected political figures to directly interact with private taxpayer information—something without precedent in modern U.S. governance.
Former Treasury official Lily Batchelder posted online that she couldn’t recall any circumstance where individuals linked to a single political appointee had this level of involvement in IRS operations. Prominent Democrats, such as Senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren, are now demanding full disclosure regarding DOGE’s operational scope and oversight mechanisms.
Those concerned with Musk’s influence argue that he is gaining control over financial data and systems in ways that bypass long-standing regulatory safeguards.
On the other hand, Musk’s defenders are quick to highlight a historical irony—Musk was one of several billionaires whose tax records were unlawfully leaked in 2021, alongside Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett. They argue that Musk’s role with DOGE is not about control, but about preventing such breaches from happening again and restoring faith in government systems.
President Donald Trump, who appointed Musk to lead DOGE after returning to office, has publicly endorsed the mission. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields reiterated the administration’s stance, stating that “systemic waste and misuse have plagued our federal government for decades,” and that “real change demands direct access to how these systems function.”
A legal attempt to curtail DOGE’s growing influence was recently brought forward by a coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general, led by New Mexico. Their lawsuit challenged the legality of DOGE’s expanding access to financial systems within seven federal agencies, arguing that Musk’s leadership position violated constitutional norms due to the lack of Senate confirmation.
However, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the request for an emergency restraining order. While acknowledging that there were genuine concerns regarding DOGE’s broad and loosely defined authority, she found that the plaintiffs had not proven immediate or irreparable harm that would justify such a legal intervention.
“Though the plaintiffs raise valid points regarding the unchecked authority of a politically-aligned, unelected leader operating within a non-legislatively sanctioned body, the court must stay within the bounds of legal standards,” Chutkan noted.
She also highlighted contradictions within the Justice Department’s statements, even issuing a caution to the government’s legal representatives about the accuracy of their claims. A footnote in her decision implied that the DOJ may have exaggerated DOGE’s power over federal staffing decisions.
Since Musk’s appointment by President Trump, DOGE has been actively embedding its personnel across a variety of federal departments, with an eye toward reducing federal expenditures by trillions of dollars. This aggressive reform agenda has sparked multiple legal disputes and placed Judge Chutkan—already a well-known figure for presiding over the now-dismissed January 6 case involving Trump—at the center of a new legal firestorm.
As Musk’s grip on government efficiency operations tightens, the dispute over DOGE’s legitimacy and the potential threat it poses to data privacy and democratic norms continues to heat up. Both sides appear to be bracing for further legal battles, as the scope of DOGE’s reach becomes a pivotal issue in the broader debate about transparency, oversight, and the influence of powerful private individuals in public affairs.
In conclusion, Elon Musk’s expanding influence through DOGE into the deepest layers of federal financial operations has sparked a fierce national dialogue about the future of governance, oversight, and privacy in America.
While advocates argue the initiative is a long-overdue attempt to clean up inefficiency and corruption, detractors warn of the risks posed by bypassing foundational checks and balances. With courtrooms now the battlefield and public trust on the line, the growing entanglement of private enterprise with federal authority may shape the U.S. political landscape for years to come. The saga of DOGE, and Musk’s central role in it, is only just beginning.