Musk Promised Government Transparency, DOGE Delivers Maximum Secrecy
from the beginning-to-think-you-can't-really-trust-what-this-guy-says dept
Before the election, Elon Musk declared:
“I think that the strong bias with respect to government information should be to make it available to the public. Let’s be as transparent as possible. Fully transparent.”
When one of his fanboys tweeted that quote, Elon responded by making an even bigger claim, saying: “There should be no need for FOIA requests. All government data should be default public for maximum transparency.”

As big believers (and users) of the FOIA system, that actually sounded good to us, and I would have supported any actual effort to make more government information and documents public by default.
Right after the inauguration, Lauren Harper at the Freedom of the Press Foundation noted that this was an opportunity for Elon to put “his documents where his mouth is, and make DOGE’s records public.” But, she noted, the early indications didn’t look good, including the fact that one of their first orders of business was to shut down the OMB FOIA portal. It’s still down as I type this.
Of course, if Musk was living up to his words that we wouldn’t even need FOIA because he’d just make everything public, well, that would be one explanation.
But that’s not what is actually happening. Just as when he took over Twitter, we’re learning that Musk’s promises and Musk’s reality are wholly different things. When he promises to make things better for “the people,” he always means “make things better for Elon.”
As you can see, he said those things two days before Elon Musk was elected alongside Donald Trump to (apparently) rip out every bit of accountability from the government of the United States of America. Now that he has near total control over the systems that make the US work, he apparently wants them to be pretty damn secret.
We first heard about this last week when the always excellent 404 Media reported that the DOGE boys were told to stop using Slack, because someone realized the conversations were accessible by FOIA.
Employees working for the agency now known as DOGE have been ordered to stop using Slack while government lawyers attempt to transition the agency to one that is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, 404 Media has learned.
“Good morning, everyone! As a reminder, please refrain from using Slack at the moment while our various general counsels figure out the best way to handle the records migration to our new EOP [Executive Office of the President] component,” a message seen by 404 Media reads. “Will update as soon as we have more information!”
Sounds like someone’s got something to hide, huh?
Given that not one, not two, but three of the DOGE boys have been outed as having terrible fucking judgment (either blatantly racist tweets or being involved with a fucked up cybercrime group built around Discord and Telegram chat channels) you have to imagine that some shit is going on in those Slack chats.
And thus, it was announced late last week that DOGE has been reorganized outside of OMB (subject to FOIA) and now under the Executive Office of the President, which is subject to the Presidential Records Act instead, allowing such records to be hidden for at least a decade.
The White House has designated Mr. Musk’s office, United States DOGE Service, as an entity insulated from public records requests or most judicial intervention until at least 2034, by declaring the documents it produces and receives presidential records.
And that, of course, is only if the Trump admin abides by the PRA, something he was famous for ignoring in his first administration, including when he took classified documents with him to Mar-A-Lago when he left office.
So, again, what is Elon hiding? After all, when he said everything should be public, he said the only exceptions should be things like “how to make a nuclear bomb.”
Seems like an admission that he’s doing some crazy shit.
Which is actually a problem if he’s claiming to be protected by the Presidential Records Act. After all, the reason there is secrecy like that under the PRA is because it’s supposed to cover advice to the President. The fear was if that advice would become public too quickly, advisors wouldn’t be able to be honest with the President. But the reason most of the rest of the executive branch is subject to FOIA is because they’re actually doing stuff, not just advising. And that information is required, under law, to be public.
I recognize, again, that the Trump administration sees laws only as things they get to use to punish those they hate, rather than anything that binds them, but I’m guessing that lawsuits are about to be filed (if they haven’t been already) challenging this designation.
So, maybe we’ll actually find out what kinds of messages Elon is trading with the guy who calls himself “Big Balls” and the guy who claimed he “was racist before it was cool.”
But only after a court gets involved. So much for “maximum transparency.”
Musk’s version of government efficiency appears to mean efficiently hiding what he and his crew are doing inside our government.
Filed Under: doge, elon musk, foia, presidential records act, transparency
Techdirt is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to 



Comments on “Musk Promised Government Transparency, DOGE Delivers Maximum Secrecy”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Culprit
When you start uncovering fraud, and then someone yells “Stop!!” and tries to prevent you from investigating further, that’s who’s committing the fraud.
Re:
Sounds like exactly what Musk and Trump are doing. Glad to see we’re on the same page for a change.
Re: Re:
In the words of Koby, being censored just proves that USAID was right.
Re:
Nice whataboutery, Koward.
Re:
So e.g. if USAID was investigating Musk’s companies, and Musk came in to shut USAID down, that would show that Musk was committing fraud?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
They’re not. USAID couldn’t even explain to the State Department how they were spending their own money.
Re: Re: Re:
Let me leave this here for you. USAID was investigating its relationship with Starlink just months before tech billionaire Elon Musk attempted to shut the agency down, according to reports.
Re: Re: Re:
When did they fail to explain their spending to the state department?
Bring receipts or shut up you pedophile
Re: Re: Re:
Source?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
“[USAID] It’s a completely unresponsive agency. It’s supposed to respond to policy directives of the State Department, and it refuses to do so. The functions of USAID, there are a lot of functions of USAID that are going to continue, that are going to be a part of US policy, but it has to be aligned with American policy. I said clearly during my confirmation hearings that every dollar we spend, every program we fund will be aligned with the national interest of the United States. And USAID has a history of ignoring that, and deciding that they’re somehow a global charity, separate from the national interest. These are taxpayer dollars, so I’m very troubled by these reports that they’ve been unwilling to cooperate with people asking simple questions, about what does this program do? What people get they money? Who are our contractors? Who’s funded? And that level of insubordination makes it impossible to conduct a mature and serious review that I think foreign aid at large should have. We’re spending taxpayer money here. These are not donor dollars. These are taxpayer dollars, and we owe the American people the assurances that every dollar we are spending abroad is being spent on something that furthers our national interest. And so far, a lot of the people working at USAID have simply refused to cooperate.”
-United States Secretary of State and Acting Director of USAID Marco Rubio, 2/03/2025.
Re: Re: Re:3
Okay, now how about bringing us a quote from someone whose lips aren’t firmly attached to Trump’s ass?
Re: Re: Re:3
How about a real source?
Re: Re: Re:3
So.. Just one idiots word.
You know how much of a brain dead sheep you are? Are you even capable of thinking for yourself?
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s funny to see how you interpret things.
So Rubio is saying people aren’t telling him what he wants to know and so you conclude that that means they can’t explain. Those are significantly different things. And the entirety of it depends on us trusting that Rubio is both perceptive and honest enough to provide an accurate description of the situation. And since, as they’ve already stated, Trump’s administration is trying to shut everything down, why would USAID personnel volunteer information that aids in its shutdown or gives fuel to the people calling for such?
That’s not the same as fraud or corruption or incompetence. You’re just interpreting everything in favor of the people whose propaganda you’ve subscribed to.
Re:
When you start claiming everything you’re opposed to is fraud, you’re just making excuses for your own abuses. See also “woke,” “DEI,” “CRT,” terrorism,” “communism,” etc. What do you stand FOR?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
nobody in DOGE said that nor acted that way
USAID entrenched bureaucrats scoff at Transparency and have stonewalled even Congress for decades
Re: Re: Re:
When?
Give examples of usaid stonewalling congress over the last decade.
Re: GTFO
They aren’t there finding fraud or even to find fraud, that would require forensic accountants NOT barely out of high school coders, and you thinking or expecting that coders would, is like expecting oligarchs to pay their taxes.
Re:
What are the qualities any of the people involved? Are the accounts? Business process improvement experts with credentials? How about fraud investigators? Are they even capable of assuring the chain of custody of data? Can they demonstrate an ability to protect PII?
When the answer is ,no, to these questions the answer should be ‘no’ to them do a goddamned thing. It wreckless otherwise.
Re:
So who’s committing the fraud that prompted the Trump administration to dismantle the Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau?
Re: Re:
Trump is clearly anti corruption, that’s why he is trying to allow businesses to bribe foreign officials.
Re: Re:
I am, of course. Why do you think I dismantled the only agency that had the power to stop my shady business dealings?
Re:
So that applies to trump right?
All those investigations he blocked or tried to block mean he’s a fraud, traitor, rapist.
Re:
Literally every statement you make is fraudulent.
Re: Re:
No wonder he wants the government to make people carry his speech.
Re:
Glad to see Koby supports FOIA requesting everything Musk is doing as a government worker.
[Taps the sign]
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
“There must be in-groups whom the law protectes [sic] but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
–Frank Wilhoit
Re: tl;dr
Power for me;
laws upon thee.
All his statements concerning free speech, govt transparency and efficiency make sense if you apply them considering his own personal interests. Free speech for nazi but not for criticism against him or his bros, transparency to the opposition only, no regulations for his businesses and heavy restrictions to the competition etc.
He’s actually very coherent when you think about it.
I don’t know if this is Musk talking out of Trump’s ass or Trump talking out of Musk’s ass… but it’s the same either way.
He’s hiding its own incompetence for hiding anything.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Up is down! Light is dark!
I mean, it’s obviously the opposite. DOGE is revealing a whole lot of things “deep state” wanted secret. That’s WHY they’re squawking bloody murder about the transparency DOGE is bringing. That’s WHY they say dumb things like “an unelected billionaire…” (literally everyone in the Executive Branch is unelected besides the President and VP, the statement is ignorant af.
Your goal in wanting “transparency” into DOGE itself is that you just want to slow it all down, and then hopefully you can waste the momentum. Answer: Hell no. This is what we voted for and the administration understand well what you are doing.
It’s hard to decide which is a bigger gaslight, this, or when you claimed censorship (“moderation”) was free speech.
“But muh racism!” doesn’t work anymore. It is very transparently “that guy I oppose said a thing I didn’t like one time so I’m going to try to use that to neutralize him!”
No. We’re not doing that anymore. The corruption will continue to be exposed and rooted out.
Re:
Who was it that basically told every government agency to drop terms like “diversity” and “privilege” and “bias” from all external and internal communications and delete pages from government websites that had similarly now-forbidden words on them?
Because I’m pretty sure that wasn’t Joe Biden.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
For the billionth time, The government deciding what government says definitely isn’t censorship.
Shhhhhh, you sound insane, you race-baiting POS.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s political censorship and it’s the worst kind.
Why don’t you go to China or Russia? Since you love how those governments are run.
Re:
You sound even more unhinged than usual. Did you forget to take your nap today, sport?
Re: Re:
I think he’s finding it harder and harder to defend the Trump administration, and it’s making him angry, and he has nowhere else but here to take out his anger.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I hear this a lot from sh!tlibs, some version “oh, they’re starting to regret it now!”
This is pure cope. I assure you, basically no one that voted for Trump is regretting it. This is exactly we voted for, and we are thrilled with how it’s going so far.
I remain as always outraged at MM’s pure gaslighting.
Re: Re: Re:2
matt you need to go to bed bro
Re: Re: Re:2
An assurance isn’t an assurance when it comes from someone who lies on a regular basis, but keep going.
You and your tiny circle of right-wing shitheads who want to defend Trump even as you get angrier and angrier about what you have to defend (and the lengths to which your defenses must go) isn’t a big enough sample size for that claim to hold water, son.
Re: Re: Re:2
Good. I hope you kill yourself after telling that to your dead family members.
Re:
You can claim that many accusations of racism are exaggerated or out of place, but not this one. Dude literally said “I was a racist before it was cool” so your insistence that it was a made up slur seems misplaced.
Of course, like with everything you post here, it is another example of you dismissing actual evidence when it directly contradicts the nonsense narrative you have in your head.
Re:
I hope your family goes bankrupt you moron
Re:
Why shouldn’t innocent peoples’ social security numbers be secret?
Re:
I see. When DOGE is bringing transparency to other agencies, it’s legit and good. When people want transparency from DOGE, it needs quotes around “transparency” because it has nefarious intent.
Reminder of Musk’s own words – “I think that the strong bias with respect to government information should be to make it available to the public. Let’s be as transparent as possible. Fully transparent.”
If DOGE has nothing to hide, DOGE has nothing to fear. Isn’t that how the phrase goes?
Re: Enlighten me
…And those things that have been ‘revealed’ are… what, exactly? Funny how I haven’t heard.
Maybe I missed it? I probably missed it. You’re paying attention, though, right? So tell me about what’s in these big revelations. Something. Anything.
Ya heard this one? ‘Things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.’
Got any evidence– anything at all besides empty assertions– that Twump and Elonia are anything but frauds who used you to gain power and are now dismantling our government for their own profit?
Hm?
Anything? Anything. At all.
Re:
Credit where credit is due: that is a perfectly concise description of every post you’ve ever made
For fun
For FOIA, is there Any chance to use the 3rd party law on privacy?
Re:
No, the Third-Party Doctrine is an exception to a Fourth Amendment restriction on the government. It is unrelated to getting information about the government’s doings. The First Amendment entitles citizens to info about multiple types of government activities; FOIA requires the process of providing that info to be somewhat smooth in theory. But apparently Elon Musk and Trump are doing everything they can to avoid doing things that FOIA applies to.
People rarely hide things they think would make them look good
Well it’s a good thing he’s not involved in anything important to the government and hundreds of millions of people, otherwise that total secrecy might be concerning as indicative that he’s doing something even he knows he shouldn’t be.
Including the exact names and identities of secret agents working behind enemy lines to defeat terrorism at its source? Either Musk is drinking the Kool-Aid or he’s a traitor. Actually, scratch the first possibility.