Elon Musk was recently highlighted at a Saudi investment conference in Miami, where former President Trump acknowledged his recent activities, calling them “positive news,” and invited Musk to stand for applause. Musk’s presence led to speculation regarding whether he was attending in his capacity as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a project aimed at streamlining federal government operations, or as the entrepreneur behind companies such as X, SpaceX, xAI, and Starlink.
Musk operates as a “special government employee,” a status established by Congress in the 1960s for temporary, specific governmental assignments, which allows him to retain his business interests while complying with conflict-of-interest laws and recusing himself if necessary. Ethics experts are concerned about potential conflicts due to his dual roles in government and business, although Musk and the White House have stated commitments to avoiding such conflicts.
Musk has been actively involved in various high-profile meetings and events. Recently, he appeared on stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference, introduced by Argentine President Javier Milei, who gifted him a chainsaw. Musk humorously referred to the chainsaw as a tool to cut through bureaucracy. During his travels, Musk met with global leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The meeting, which Musk attended with his children, raised questions about whether he was acting as part of the U.S. government or representing his business interests with Tesla’s expansion plans in India.
Critics have raised concerns about Musk’s dual roles, especially since government contracts and regulations may overlap with his business activities. Richard Briffault, a government ethics specialist, and several others have pointed out the potential for conflict of interest. Don Fox, a former top lawyer at the Office of Government Ethics, suggested that the formal processes to manage such conflicts may not be fully implemented, and public disclosure remains incomplete.
The White House insists that Musk will file a confidential disclosure of his financial interests soon and has been briefed on the ethical requirements of his government role. However, critics remain skeptical about the public’s ability to assess whether Musk’s actions serve taxpayer interests or his business endeavors. The White House maintains that concerns are partisan and that Musk will adhere to strict ethical guidelines.
In interviews, Musk has downplayed conflict of interest concerns and indicated that he would recuse himself if necessary, with Trump supporting this stance. The administration’s dismissal of ethics watchdogs adds further context to the debate around oversight and transparency.
John Yoo, a law professor and former Justice Department lawyer, described the balance the White House aims for by bringing in high-profile advisers like Musk without granting them authority to enact decisions. The legalities surrounding such advisory roles, previously litigated during Hillary Clinton’s healthcare reform initiatives, aim to maintain the advisory nature without direct power.
The situation is complicated by the lack of clarity about Musk’s precise authority, which has led ethical experts to question both transparency and effectiveness in oversight. Stephen Gillers, an emeritus professor of legal ethics, expressed skepticism about the ability to fully grasp or influence Musk’s activities and impact within the government. Despite this, White House officials have dismissed these concerns, stating confidence in Musk’s ethical compliance.
