The Illusion of Transparency
Musk, Trump, and the Role of Congress
In an odd media interaction, President Trump sat quietly at his desk while Elon Musk fielded questions about DOGE and its purpose. When asked about potential conflicts of interest, Musk responded, "Transparency is what builds trust." This answer is as befuddling as it is true.
Over the first few weeks of the Trump administration, much has been written and said about DOGE and Musk’s role in the federal government. I wrote an article expressing my concerns. The response from Musk supporters was predictable:
At the risk of repeating myself, I will attempt to frame my argument more clearly. The problem, as I see it, is that transparency builds trust, and at the moment, there is no transparency.
Reform Without Oversight
Government reform to improve visibility, eliminate waste, root out fraud, and streamline operations is a worthy goal—more than that, it is a governing imperative. The inefficiency of the federal government has eroded public confidence, fueled conspiracy theories, and resulted in poor governance. A nimble executive branch is more critical than ever. The complexity and seriousness of America’s challenges demand that the government not collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy. A federal government that excels at five things is better than one that is subpar at a hundred.
However, the United States is a system of interlocking, democratically empowered institutions designed to work together—and, when necessary, against each other—to balance the needs and rights of both the majority and the minority. The executive branch is just one of these institutions. Congress has a constitutional duty to provide oversight and serve as a check on executive power.
That is the issue. Transparency is achieved through congressional oversight. I do not wish to halt efforts to modernize the federal government and reduce waste, but in a functioning democracy, it is reasonable to expect these conversations to happen openly, with input from representatives of all Americans—not just those who voted for Donald Trump.
The concern is not that fraud and waste are being addressed. The issue is that what constitutes fraud and waste appears to be at the discretion of one man—elected or otherwise. What I consider waste, someone else may consider necessary. Congress must be involved in making those determinations.
Representative Democracy is not an Elected Dictatorship
What qualifies as fraud? What counts as waste? What is DOGE doing with the Treasury information it is acquiring? Is it complying with laws regarding the sharing of government information? Is it following security laws and best practices? If fraud is being found, what is it? Who is responsible? These are not unreasonable questions. Congress should be asking them, and the administration should be answering. Instead, we are expected to take Musk’s word for it.
Musk called USAID a “criminal organization.” I would agree that many of its expenditures are wasteful—such as funding Irish DEI music festivals—but if Congress approved these activities, they are not fraud, nor are they crimes. The President has broad authority over USAID, but making changes without notifying Congress may be illegal if those funds were specifically appropriated. Musk and Trump do not seem concerned with finding out. Congress has a duty to check. Once again, we are expected to take Musk’s word for it.
The United States deserves an efficient, lean executive branch, but it also needs a robust and functioning Congress. Yet Congress appears willing, once again, to defer its authority to the executive. On CNN, Congressman Jim Jordan, when pressed about DOGE shutting down government agencies, said they would need to work with Congress at "some point." That point is now. Congress does not need to pass legislation, approve funding, or launch an investigation, but it is reasonable to expect periodic updates and a clear understanding of the plan. Lawmakers should not passively wait for the executive branch to share information whenever it deems it appropriate.
Trump and his supporters, including Musk, often defend their actions by citing Trump’s mandate or the will of the people. This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, Trump’s mandate is not as overwhelming as they seem to believe. When all was said and done, he won 49.8% of the vote—less than half. Second, and more importantly, no election result, no matter how decisive, entitles a president to operate above the other branches of government. The concern is not whether he won or whether he has a mandate; the concern is the belief that victory lifts the President and his agents above legal constraints and democratic norms.
A Legacy of Executive Overreach
Musk may leave his role in a few months, and he may leave behind some positive changes. But if he also leaves behind the precedent that winning an election entitles a president to reshape the executive branch with little or no oversight, the U.S. system of government will be all the weaker for it. Politicians are notoriously shortsighted. They rarely consider what will happen when the same authority they eagerly grant today is wielded by their political opponents tomorrow. If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becomes President in four or eight years, appoints a diversity czar, fires all Trump appointees as "frauds," and restructures the federal workforce based on her own criteria, those currently cheering Musk and Trump will likely feel very differently about the Leviathan they created. If Democrats move to impeach any judge who opposes her and she declares that she can’t be breaking the law because she is “saving” America, undoubtedly then they will remember that they worried once about an unchecked executive.
Musk claimed in his interview that everything he does is public and can be scrutinized. By this, he seems to mean that he tweets frequently and that people are free to tweet back. He certainly does not welcome scrutiny from federal judges. He also admitted that not everything he says will be correct and that he sees no reason to ensure accuracy. If misleading claims—such as sending condoms to Gaza—are used to justify shutting down federal agencies, but the decision-makers do not know the difference between Gaza in the Middle East and Gaza in Mozambique, that is a serious problem. Musk is right about one thing: no single person can always be correct. That is precisely why no single person should have unchecked decision-making power in a democracy.
Time for Congressional Action
I am not looking for someone to "save" the federal bureaucracy, nor am I hoping for Musk or DOGE to fail. I want a more effective federal government. I want waste reduced, fraud punished, and bad employees removed while good employees are promoted. But those goals do not require blind loyalty and unquestioned authority. I want those reforms—and I also want a Congress that fulfills its constitutional role, not one that merely follows the president’s lead.
In a functioning democracy, process matters. Yes, Congress may slow things down and require compromises. Yes, conservatives might not achieve all their policy goals. But that is how democracy works. That is how legitimacy is built. At a time when political forces have spent years undermining trust in government institutions for political gain, we should be working to restore broad buy-in into the system—not further eroding it. I am not rooting against DOGE; I am calling for a real, functioning Congress.
A DOGE committee hearing was finally held on February 12. Perhaps the horse will finally try to catch up to the cart. Time will tell whether it is a serious effort, but any effort is better than none. In that hearing, Rep. Melanie Stansbury invited Musk to testify if he is truly committed to transparency. She is right. I sincerely hope he follows through.
