Billionaire Elon Musk’s team, DOGE, is reportedly expanding the use of his AI chatbot, Grok, within the U.S. federal government to analyze data, an initiative fraught with potential legal and ethical concerns. According to three sources familiar with the situation, this development could raise red flags concerning potential conflicts of interest as well as questions about the handling of sensitive information pertaining to millions of Americans.
The application of Grok in this capacity amplifies existing anxieties among privacy advocates. They worry that Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) might be compromising long-standing protocols related to the management of sensitive data amid a shifting political landscape led by President Donald Trump.
One insider with direct knowledge of DOGE’s operations revealed that the team is utilizing a tailored version of the Grok chatbot to more efficiently manage data queries. This source mentioned, “They ask questions, get it to prepare reports, give data analysis.” Furthermore, reports suggest that DOGE members have encouraged Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials to adopt Grok, even though it lacks departmental approval.
It remains unclear exactly what data has been used within the generative AI tool or how the custom system is designed. However, Grok’s development by Musk’s xAI—initiated on his social media platform, X, in 2023—poses risks if sensitive governmental data is involved. Such actions may breach security and privacy laws, warned five experts in technology and government ethics.
The situation could also enable Musk, a key figure behind Tesla and SpaceX, to access valuable non-public federal contracting data associated with agencies he conducts private business with. This could unfairly advantage him against other AI service providers aspiring to engage with the federal government.
Requests for comment from Musk, the White House, and xAI went unanswered. A DHS representative refuted claims that DOGE had coerced DHS personnel to utilize Grok, asserting, “DOGE hasn’t pushed any employees to use any particular tools or products.” They added, “DOGE is here to find and fight waste, fraud, and abuse.”
As a newcomer compared to other industry leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic, Musk’s xAI states on its platform that it might monitor Grok users for “specific business purposes.” Meanwhile, the company’s website asserts, “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible.”
Musk positions his administration’s initiative to slash government inefficiency at the forefront, alongside DOGE’s penetrative access to secure federal databases housing personal data of millions. Experts caution that only a select handful of government officials typically access such data due to risks of it being sold, lost, leaked, or improperly exposed—threatening Americans’ privacy or national security.
Departmental authorizations customarily govern data sharing across the federal government involving federal specialists, ensuring adherence to privacy, confidentiality, and other pertinent laws.
If sensitive federal data is processed through Grok, this marks a significant pivot in DOGE’s mandate—a team involving software engineers and others linked to Musk. In efforts of eliminating purported governmental waste, fraud, and abuse, they have discharged thousands of federal employees, appropriated control over sensitive data infrastructures, and endeavored to dismantle existing agencies.
Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, classified this activity as one of the most critical threats to privacy. “Given the scale of data that DOGE has amassed and given the numerous concerns of porting that data into software like Grok, this to me is about as serious a privacy threat as you get,” Cahn asserted.
Cary Coglianese, federal regulations and ethics expert at the University of Pennsylvania, emphasized the competitive edge DOGE’s information access could provide to Grok and xAI against other AI contractors. “The company has a financial interest in insisting that their product be used by federal employees,” he noted. This situation cultivates what experts describe as the “appearance of self-dealing.”
In other department actions, DHS has pivoted in its AI policy, allowing usage of platforms like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Grammarly’s tool. However, DHS’s establishment of an internal bot was aimed to shield sensitive data, particularly after worker misuse scandals led to broader commercial AI tool prohibitions.
Musk recently communicated to investors his intention to limit his involvement with DOGE to a couple of days per week. Although, his designation as a special government employee restricts his role to 130 days, its potential extension remains pending based on workload adjustments. Yet, his DOGE team propels forward with federal initiatives as Musk eases his engagement within the White House framework.
In matters concerning Musk’s influence over Grok’s deployment, legal specialists predict potential violations of criminal conflict-of-interest statutes. Richard Painter, ethics advocate for former Republican President George W. Bush, expressed, “This gives the appearance that DOGE is pressuring agencies to use software to enrich Musk and xAI, not to the benefit of the American people.” According to Painter, inadequate prosecution tradition surrounds this statute but potential repercussions involve fines or imprisonment.
If DOGE team members initiate Grok’s usage to ingratiate themselves with Musk—absent his direct involvement—while ethically unfavored, it would not infringe on conflict-of-interest statutes legally. Painter explains, “We can’t prosecute it, but it would be the job of the White House to prevent it. It gives the appearance of self-dealing.”
More broadly, DOGE’s push parallels Musk’s strategic aim to reinforce AI’s utility in federal spheres, led by staff members Kyle Schutt and Edward Coristine. Schutt and Coristine’s in-depth AI ventures into the governmental labyrinth reflect profound federal staff observation plans, although explicit evidence of utilization remains speculative.
While some Defense Department entities reportedly supervise employees via an undisclosed algorithmic tool assessing political impartiality, the Department of Defense denies DOGE’s involvement or directive leveraging any AI instruments, including Grok. “All government computers are inherently subject to monitoring as part of the standard user agreement,” clarified Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson.
As agencies redefine their AI engagement towards transparency and security, these developments surface seeking to align public reassurance with the technological progressions shaping governmental operations, ensuring the safeguarding of both privacy and law. Yet, questions remain about the future course and governance of such integrations.
