According to a Reuters investigation, the Trump administration is reportedly using the artificial intelligence developed by Elon Musk, specifically the Grok chatbot, in a controversial manner within federal agencies
Making it even more concerning would be the central role of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created with the declared intent of optimizing administrative efficiency, but accused of intervening in an opaque and coercive manner. Two anonymous employees of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported increasing internal pressure, fueled by a systematic search, conducted through messaging software and collaborative tools, for “anti-Trump” or “anti-Musk” content.
The key tool of this operation would indeed be Grok, the artificial intelligence created by the SpaceX and xAI magnate, which would allow comprehensive surveillance of the internal communications of the agencies.
An algorithm at the service of loyalty: the involvement of AI in Trump’s public administration
Although the surveillance has never been officially confirmed, internal sources at the EPA have reported that the management has warned workers to “be careful about what they say, write, and do.” Tools like Microsoft Teams and other internal communication apps are reportedly under scrutiny
The result: a climate of self-censorship among public officials, concerned about possible disciplinary retaliation related to their personal opinions or alignment with the presidential agenda. The EPA appears to be among the most affected agencies, with even 600 employees placed on leave starting from January.
The Trump administration has also expressed the intention to cut up to 65% of the agency’s budget, an action that could lead to dramatic consequences in terms of operations and personnel.
Hunt for the “non-aligned”: the dark side of AI
The accusations echoing from various quarters, both among Democrats and Republicans, suggest that the strategy of organic reduction is an ideological purge, disguised as administrative rationalization. According to these voices, the undeclared purpose of DOGE would be to expel neutral or critical government employees, to replace them with loyalists willing to ignore any irregularities. However, an EPA spokesperson categorically denied the accusations, labeling the report as “completely false” and clarifying that the agency “does not monitor or record phone calls, meetings, or calendar entries.”
DOGE and the gray area of legality
The veil of discretion surrounding DOGE’s activities has led to strong criticism, especially for its status within the Executive Office of the President, which would make it exempt from the normal federal document registration and preservation laws. According to Reuters, this regulatory ambiguity is used to bypass data security regulations and to commit alleged ethical violations.
As a special government employee, Musk is obligated not to exploit his position for personal gain or for his enterprises. However, the integration of his AI chatbot into government systems raises strong doubts: this access would favor the collection of sensitive data, potentially useful for entrepreneurial purposes.
It is not the first time that rumors have circulated about a possible use of artificial intelligence to replace public employees. Even before Trump’s reelection, an insider reported that Musk had suggested using Grok to automate government work, thanks to the vast amount of state data available for AI training.
Signal, Google Docs and the fragile boundary of transparency
Another point of strong contention concerns the use of the Signal application, famous for its message auto-deletion mechanism. According to a legal case, using such apps for official communications would hinder freedom of information laws, creating barriers to accessing public data
DOGE would have also resorted to unorthodox methods to avoid any form of documentary supervision. Government sources report that Google Docs is used for the simultaneous and shared drafting of official documents, in order to avoid the traceability of multiple drafts sent by email — a quick and efficient way to operate, but outside the document preservation protocols.
Privacy violated? The case of data collection by the Department of Education
Another concerning complaint comes from a federal proceeding, according to which the USA administration allegedly abused data from the Department of Education. The plaintiffs claim that DOGE has acquired personal information of tens of millions of Americans without their consent. The collected data would include incomes, social security numbers, dates of birth, residential addresses, marital status, and citizenship, used, according to the allegations, “with the purpose of destroying” the Department
In March, a federal judge ordered DOGE to hand over the documents requested by the organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which had initiated a legal action precisely to obtain greater transparency through the Freedom of Information Act. However, to date, no document has been provided yet.
Artificial intelligence: weapon of efficiency or tool of control?
A final point of reflection concerns the actual use of artificial intelligence within the EPA. While the agency categorically denies the use of AI as a criterion for personnel decisions, it does admit that it is examining the use of these technologies to “optimize administrative functions.”
The distinction is subtle but crucial: on one side, there is the efficiency promised by digital innovation, on the other, the risk of a centralized and non-transparent control of public institutions. In an era where artificial intelligence promises to revolutionize every aspect of society, from transportation to healthcare, its impact on democracy remains a shadowy area still too little explored
The DOGE case, amid accusations, denials, and requests for clarity, thus becomes the testing ground for a future in which the boundary between innovation and ethics can become dangerously thin.
The content is for reference only, not a solicitation or offer. No investment, tax, or legal advice provided. See Disclaimer for more risks disclosure.
Grok, Signal and surveillance: the new face of control in the federal departments USA
According to a Reuters investigation, the Trump administration is reportedly using the artificial intelligence developed by Elon Musk, specifically the Grok chatbot, in a controversial manner within federal agencies
Making it even more concerning would be the central role of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created with the declared intent of optimizing administrative efficiency, but accused of intervening in an opaque and coercive manner. Two anonymous employees of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported increasing internal pressure, fueled by a systematic search, conducted through messaging software and collaborative tools, for “anti-Trump” or “anti-Musk” content.
The key tool of this operation would indeed be Grok, the artificial intelligence created by the SpaceX and xAI magnate, which would allow comprehensive surveillance of the internal communications of the agencies.
An algorithm at the service of loyalty: the involvement of AI in Trump’s public administration
Although the surveillance has never been officially confirmed, internal sources at the EPA have reported that the management has warned workers to “be careful about what they say, write, and do.” Tools like Microsoft Teams and other internal communication apps are reportedly under scrutiny
The result: a climate of self-censorship among public officials, concerned about possible disciplinary retaliation related to their personal opinions or alignment with the presidential agenda. The EPA appears to be among the most affected agencies, with even 600 employees placed on leave starting from January.
The Trump administration has also expressed the intention to cut up to 65% of the agency’s budget, an action that could lead to dramatic consequences in terms of operations and personnel.
Hunt for the “non-aligned”: the dark side of AI
The accusations echoing from various quarters, both among Democrats and Republicans, suggest that the strategy of organic reduction is an ideological purge, disguised as administrative rationalization. According to these voices, the undeclared purpose of DOGE would be to expel neutral or critical government employees, to replace them with loyalists willing to ignore any irregularities. However, an EPA spokesperson categorically denied the accusations, labeling the report as “completely false” and clarifying that the agency “does not monitor or record phone calls, meetings, or calendar entries.”
DOGE and the gray area of legality
The veil of discretion surrounding DOGE’s activities has led to strong criticism, especially for its status within the Executive Office of the President, which would make it exempt from the normal federal document registration and preservation laws. According to Reuters, this regulatory ambiguity is used to bypass data security regulations and to commit alleged ethical violations.
As a special government employee, Musk is obligated not to exploit his position for personal gain or for his enterprises. However, the integration of his AI chatbot into government systems raises strong doubts: this access would favor the collection of sensitive data, potentially useful for entrepreneurial purposes.
It is not the first time that rumors have circulated about a possible use of artificial intelligence to replace public employees. Even before Trump’s reelection, an insider reported that Musk had suggested using Grok to automate government work, thanks to the vast amount of state data available for AI training.
Signal, Google Docs and the fragile boundary of transparency
Another point of strong contention concerns the use of the Signal application, famous for its message auto-deletion mechanism. According to a legal case, using such apps for official communications would hinder freedom of information laws, creating barriers to accessing public data
DOGE would have also resorted to unorthodox methods to avoid any form of documentary supervision. Government sources report that Google Docs is used for the simultaneous and shared drafting of official documents, in order to avoid the traceability of multiple drafts sent by email — a quick and efficient way to operate, but outside the document preservation protocols.
Privacy violated? The case of data collection by the Department of Education
Another concerning complaint comes from a federal proceeding, according to which the USA administration allegedly abused data from the Department of Education. The plaintiffs claim that DOGE has acquired personal information of tens of millions of Americans without their consent. The collected data would include incomes, social security numbers, dates of birth, residential addresses, marital status, and citizenship, used, according to the allegations, “with the purpose of destroying” the Department
In March, a federal judge ordered DOGE to hand over the documents requested by the organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which had initiated a legal action precisely to obtain greater transparency through the Freedom of Information Act. However, to date, no document has been provided yet.
Artificial intelligence: weapon of efficiency or tool of control?
A final point of reflection concerns the actual use of artificial intelligence within the EPA. While the agency categorically denies the use of AI as a criterion for personnel decisions, it does admit that it is examining the use of these technologies to “optimize administrative functions.”
The distinction is subtle but crucial: on one side, there is the efficiency promised by digital innovation, on the other, the risk of a centralized and non-transparent control of public institutions. In an era where artificial intelligence promises to revolutionize every aspect of society, from transportation to healthcare, its impact on democracy remains a shadowy area still too little explored
The DOGE case, amid accusations, denials, and requests for clarity, thus becomes the testing ground for a future in which the boundary between innovation and ethics can become dangerously thin.