Trump, Musk, and their dangerous AI-driven government overhaul

In a bold and controversial move, the Trump administration, under the significant influence of billionaire Elon Musk, is reshaping the technological landscape of the federal government. Through an aggressive push for AI adoption, structural government downsizing, and the streamlining of bureaucratic processes, the administration is setting a new precedent in federal operations. However, these changes present serious legal, ethical, and security concerns that are raising alarms among government employees, privacy advocates, policymakers, and the national security and intelligence communities.

At the center of this transformation is Thomas Shedd, a former Tesla engineer and now the head of the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Technology Transformation Services (TTS). A Musk associate, Shedd has taken a proactive role in leading the charge for an AI-first government. In a recent meeting with government tech workers, he outlined an ambitious strategy aimed at deploying AI throughout various agencies, automating federal processes and integrating digital identity verification systems with sensitive and even classified government data IT systems.

Shedd’s plan includes the creation of “AI coding agents” that will autonomously generate government software, significantly reducing the reliance on human programmers. The AI models would be trained on existing government contracts, which raises security and privacy concerns. He has also proposed centralizing government contract data for AI-driven analysis, which some fear could expose classified or sensitive information.

While Shedd and Musk’s allies in the administration view these changes as an opportunity to modernize and increase efficiency, many government employees are pushing back. Some see these efforts as a way to corporatize the federal government, implementing Silicon Valley’s disruptive ethos into an institution that operates under a fundamentally different framework.

One of the most contentious elements of this initiative is the proposed modification of Login.gov, the federal government’s digital identity and authentication system. Currently, Login.gov is used by more than 50 state and federal government agencies, including the Social Security Administration, and has 50 million active users. Despite its broad adoption, the system has faced criticism for its high cost (reportedly around $300 million) and technical issues.

Shedd’s proposal seeks to integrate Login.gov with sensitive government databases such as Social Security to enable more comprehensive identity verification and fraud prevention. Login.gov currently operates without access to personal data from other agencies, limiting its ability to verify user identities comprehensively. Shedd’s proposal aims to establish secure APIs that would allow Login.gov to access such information, thereby improving its verification processes.

The plan has triggered legal and ethical concerns among government employees and security officials.

During a meeting with TTS workers, Shedd conceded that the Privacy Act restricts agencies from sharing personal information without user consent, yet he remained firm in pushing forward anyway. He even suggested that while obtaining consent would be preferable, the administration nevertheless should explore working around the law to implement the changes. Government employees in attendance were quick to point out the legal barriers, calling the proposal an “illegal task.”

The Privacy Act of 1974 was established to prevent precisely this kind of data sharing without user approval, and any move to bypass it will most assuredly trigger legal challenges. Nevertheless, Shedd remained undeterred, emphasizing that “if we hit a roadblock, then we hit a roadblock. But we still should push forward and see what we can do.”

“Do what? Knowingly break the law?” a GSA IT engineer told Biometric Update on condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution.

The increasing influence of Elon Musk over federal agencies is causing grave concern among government officials – including national defense and security officials – and privacy advocates. Since taking office, Trump has brought several of Musk’s close associates into key government positions, particularly within the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and GSA. This has led to significant shake-ups, including the shuttering of various government offices.

Meanwhile, critics – including national security authorities – are sounding the alarm that Musk’s team, composed of young engineers with little to no government experience, lack the necessary security clearances to handle sensitive information. This situation has been described as a “cyberattack” because they have not been cleared access, posing a serious risk of misuse of sensitive and even classified information.

One particularly controversial move was the recent closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development building in Washington, D.C. Employees were locked out of their emails and the agency’s website was taken offline after Musk publicly declared that he and Trump had agreed to shut it down. Congressional Democrats have vowed to challenge the action, underscoring the sweeping changes being implemented under the administration’s new blitzkrieg strategy. As of this writing, the USAID website is unavailable with the exception of the Inspector General’s website.

Musk and his small, hand-picked team tried to access USAID’s personnel files, security and classified IT systems which include security clearance information for agency employees. They were disallowed access to the systems by USAID’s director of security and his deputy, who were immediately placed on administrative leave.

Because USAID has long provided official cover for CIA operations officers, Musk and his team’s actions are causing escalating concern, uncertainty, and tension inside the CIA and is putting the Intelligence Community (IC) at odds with the White House. Biometric Update has learned that the CIA has had to take action to protect sources and methods of collection and the security of active operations around the world, as well as emergency exfiltrations of officers on the ground. Meanwhile, IC counterintelligence officials are on alert for compromises in case Musk has been able to access USAID’s classified IT systems.

Additionally, Musk’s allies appear to be targeting the government’s tech workforce. Reports suggest that TTS and its software development division, 18F, are being dismantled, with employees being offered “deferred resignation” options or pressured into one-on-one meetings with unidentified advisors. Musk himself has publicly dismissed 18F as a “far-left government-wide computer office” and claimed that it has been “deleted.”

That statement led to confusion about the status of programs associated with 18F such as the IRS’s Direct File program. Despite Musk’s claim, the Direct File program remains operational for the current tax season. 18F’s website is still active, though their social media presence has been deactivated.

The IRS’s Direct File program is a significant initiative aimed at simplifying the tax filing process for American taxpayers. Launched as a pilot in 2024, it allows eligible individuals to file their federal income tax returns directly with the IRS at no cost, eliminating the need for third-party software or paid tax preparation services.

18F is a team of designers, software engineers, strategists, and product managers within GSA that was established in 2014 by a group of Presidential Innovation Fellows. 18F collaborates with federal agencies to enhance public services through technology. Their work includes building and improving digital products, modernizing software development processes, and streamlining internal systems.

One notable project involving 18F is the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act) with the Department of the Treasury. This initiative aimed to standardize federal spending data, making it more accessible and transparent to the public. 18F assisted in developing a prototype for ingesting and presenting data, conducted user research, and provided procurement strategies to ensure successful project outcomes.

All of the action’s – many likely in violation of law – taken by Musk and his shadowy team are part of his broader agenda of reducing government involvement in digital infrastructure and shifting responsibilities to the private sector. By centralizing power within a small group of technologists, the administration is accelerating its drive toward automation and AI governance while cutting down on human oversight.

The rapid AI-driven transformation of government systems raises serious national security concerns. AI-generated government code, if not properly vetted, could introduce vulnerabilities that malicious actors could exploit. Foreign adversaries, cybercriminals, and even internal bad actors could take advantage of AI-generated software’s inherent unpredictability, inserting backdoors or other exploits that could compromise sensitive federal data.

Furthermore, the administration’s plan to integrate Login.gov with sensitive databases opens the door to potential misuse of personal data. While the stated goal is to prevent fraud, critics argue that such an initiative could also enable mass surveillance, unauthorized data sharing, and privacy violations. Given that Musk himself has a vested interest in federal contracts – his companies, including SpaceX and Tesla, have received billions in government funding – there is also concern that AI-driven government processes could be manipulated for corporate gain.

The Trump administration’s push for an AI-first federal government is facing growing significant legal challenges in federal court that almost assuredly will find sympathetic courts. The Privacy Act and other data protection laws are designed to prevent precisely the kind of personal data integration that Shedd is proposing and that Musk and his hand-picked team are pursuing. If the administration continues to move forward without obtaining explicit consent from users, lawsuits are inevitable.

Additionally, the restructuring of TTS and 18F raises questions about the long-term viability of federal technology programs. Many employees see the dismantling of these agencies as an effort to funnel top government tech talent into Musk-affiliated organizations, while the remaining workforce is left to wither away. This talent migration could create a brain drain within the federal government, leaving it increasingly dependent on private-sector solutions.

Musk and his allies are also looking beyond Login.gov. Some reports suggest that the administration is considering divesting Login.gov into the private sector, turning it into a general-purpose digital identity wallet that could be used both by government agencies and private companies. This approach mirrors international models such as the UK’s eIDAS framework and the FedRAMP certification process for cloud providers.

By outsourcing digital identity management to the private sector, the government could potentially reduce costs and improve efficiency. However, this shift raises serious and dangerous concerns about accountability, security, and data privacy. Critics argue that placing the nation’s identity infrastructure into the hands of private corporations will lead to monopolization, increased surveillance, and reduced transparency.

The Trump administration’s AI-driven government transformation is an ambitious and disruptive initiative that seeks to modernize federal operations while reducing bureaucracy. However, the aggressive approach being taken – particularly regarding Login.gov integration, AI-driven automation, and the restructuring of government tech agencies – raises significant ethical, legal, and security concerns.

While AI has the potential to improve efficiency and reduce costs, its deployment in government systems must be approached with caution. Privacy protections, transparency, and rigorous security assessments must be prioritized to ensure that the benefits of AI do not come at the expense of citizens’ rights and national security.

As these initiatives continue to unfold, the administration will be trying to navigate a complex legal landscape while addressing growing opposition from within government ranks and Congress. The outcome of this AI-first strategy will not only shape the future of federal technology policy, it could also set a precedent for how automation and artificial intelligence are integrated into public institutions worldwide.

Article Topics

cybersecurity  |  data privacy  |  digital identity  |  DOGE  |  GSA  |  Login.gov  |  national security  |  U.S. Government