Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Elon Musk’s government takeover is powered by AI
Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, aka DOGE, has sought massive cuts to the federal workforce, in particular targeting USAID, the Department of Education, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among other agencies.
But Musk isn’t just seizing control of the executive branch; he’s using artificial intelligence as his weapon of choice.
At the Education Department, DOGE representatives have reportedly fed sensitive data, including personally identifiable student loan information, into AI software through Microsoft’s Azure cloud service. A group of students from the University of California sued DOGE in federal court on Friday for allegedly violating federal privacy rules and exceeding their statutory authority. Additionally, congressional Democrats have demanded answers about allegations of a private server used at the Office of Personnel Management; federal workers have sued to stop this, while OPM officials deny it violates the law. And a federal judge on Saturday temporarily halted DOGE access to taxpayer information at the Treasury Department because, the judge wrote, it risks disclosure of “sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking.”
At the General Services Administration, a former Tesla engineer is pushing an “AI-first strategy” that involves building a custom chatbot called GSAi to help draft memos faster and adopting an AI coding agent such as the popular assistant Cursor to assist with software development.
Privacy and security advocates warn that the integration of AI software into the federal government could create significant risks — especially if not done carefully. “Using AI to cut spending or reform government operations is dangerous,” said Kit Walsh, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s AI director. “AI isn’t magic; it is generated using data collected by humans and often categorized by humans. Then it provides a way to quickly (and often sloppily) try to reproduce the patterns and categories that have been given to it.”
Calli Schroeder, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said there’s also the risk that AI gobbles up sensitive data and helps train its model on it. “Many AI systems use input data to expand their training datasets in addition to using it to generate a prompt response,” she said. “This not only means security risk if the raw training data is exposed, but also puts the data at risk for further misuse.”
Schroeder noted that these revelations raised fundamental questions about government security protocols if DOGE is indeed using unsecured systems. “Any halfway responsible business or organization has many security procedures and policies about what products you can and cannot connect with company devices,” she said. “It appears that our government either does not meet this incredibly basic level of responsibility and good practice, or no one is enforcing existing policies or procedures.”
The Education Department claims that there’s nothing to worry about with regard to DOGE staff overhauling the department’s systems. “They have been sworn in, have the necessary background checks and clearances, and are focused on making the Department more cost-efficient, effective, and accountable to the taxpayers,” a spokesperson said in a statement to the press. “There is nothing inappropriate or nefarious going on.”
But a lack of transparency has pervaded the entire Musk takeover without comprehensive congressional oversight and with DOGE staffers at times refusing to even give their names while interrogating civil servants. It’s wholly unclear what’s going on mere weeks into the administration with major changes at multiple government departments and agencies — all seemingly with an element of AI. “We deserve lawful, transparent, and accountable decisions in government operations,” Walsh said. “It’s difficult to imagine that the technology at work here is fit for the purpose of making spending and personnel decisions — and Americans deserve better than to have to guess at how those decisions are being made.”Elon Musk wants to buy OpenAI
Elon Musk is leading a contingent of investors seeking to buy OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT.
The group, which also includes the firms Valor Equity Partners, Baron Capital, Atreides Management, Vy Capital, and 8VC, reportedly offered $97.4 billion to buy OpenAI. The plan: To buy the biggest name in AI and merge it with Musk’s own AI firm, xAI, which makes the chatbot Grok.
This bid comes as Musk is taking a prominent role in the Trump administration and could help dictate the direction of AI investment in the country. Sam Altman has also sought to get into Trump’s good graces, despite being a longtime Democratic donor, standing by Trump last month to announce Stargate, a $500 billion AI infrastructure project.
Altman is also attempting to convert the nonprofit OpenAI to a for-profit company. In doing so, OpenAI is expected to soon close a historic funding round led by the Japanese investment house SoftBank, which could value OpenAI around $300 billion. Not only would that make OpenAI the most valuable privately held company in the world, but it’d also make Musk and Co.’s offer a serious lowball. However, Musk’s offer could complicate OpenAI’s attempts to establish a fair value for an untraditionally structured corporate entity.
Altman responded to the offer on X, which Musk owns. “No thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want,” he said. In response, Musk called Altman “Scam Altman” and has previously claimed the company does not have the investment it’s claiming for Stargate, a rare point of tension between Musk and Trump, who heralded the deal.
Silicon Valley is taking center stage in the Trump administration, but two of the loudest voices in Trump’s ear — at least on AI — are in an increasingly hostile spat.
Elon Musk walks on Capitol Hill on the day of a meeting with Senate Republican Leader-elect John Thune (R-SD), in Washington, U.S. December 5, 2024.
Judge delays DOGE’s resignation deadline
While the Trump administration had hoped for 200,000 resignations, just over 40,000 employees – less than 2% of the federal workforce – had reportedly accepted the offer as of Wednesday.
Another federal judge also limited DOGE’s access to the Treasury Department payments system over privacy concerns on Thursday. That order gives “read only” access to two DOGE employees, both of whom have close ties to Musk.
Despite these legal measures, DOGE employees are fanning out across federal agencies, including the Center for Disease Control, the Labor Department, and the big kahuna: Medicare and Medicaid. Since Wednesday, DOGE officials have gained access to payment and contracting systems for both Medicare and Medicaid, which control hundreds of billions in healthcare provider payments.
DOGE aims to tackle fraud in the system – some of the $100 billion in improper Medicare and Medicaid payments in 2023 – by strengthening existing anti-fraud efforts. But some fear the complexity of the healthcare system could lead to mistakes and overly aggressive cuts. Any missteps that cost voters their insurance or lead to grave health consequences could cost Republicans in the 2026 midterms.
Close up of South African flag.
South African leader defends land reform to Elon Musk
Why was the law changed? Even though apartheid ended 30 years ago, and white South Africans are only 7.3% of the population, as of 2017 they still possessed 72% of privately owned farmland. Critics warn, however, that a new expropriation law risks replicating the experience of neighboring Zimbabwe, where seizures of white-owned land in the name of racial equity devastated agricultural productivity and discouraged foreign investment.
This week, Republican US Sen. Ted Cruz said he will use his position as chairman of the Africa subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee to “investigate these and other concerning decisions” by South Africa. Cruz also criticized Pretoria’s directive last month to Taiwan that it relocate its Taipei Liaison Office from the capital before the end of March, posting to X that “the South African government seems to be going out of their way to alienate the United States and our allies.” China is South Africa’s largest trading partner and encouraged the country to sever relations with Taiwan in 1997.
Why cutting USAID will hurt American foreign policy
Ian's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take for today on USAID, the US Agency for International Development, which is in the process of being shut down. Nearly all Washington staff have been put on leave, they're closing missions abroad, the State Department moving to evacuate all staff around the world. Why should we care? Does this matter? This agency was set up back over 50 years ago, 1961, by then President John F. Kennedy, and it was meant to coordinate the distribution of foreign aid for the United States all over the world and differentiate that from military support that was provided by the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the US isn't providing charity, that's not what foreign aid is, that it should be providing support for US national interests. And I agree that it should be providing support for US national interest, but it is important to recognize that actually when USAID was set up, it was set up in part as charity, that President Kennedy's position was that the United States had a moral obligation to support poorer people, and poorer countries around the world. They are fellow human beings, after all, and the United States has historically benefited massively from developing resources all around the world, and frequently, the people that lived in those countries didn't get very much as a consequence, and the US has benefited massively, as have other wealthy countries, from industrialization, and putting carbon into the atmosphere that now poor countries can't do because of climate change, and we're saying, "We need to transition," but the US, of course, has gotten the benefits of that historically.
You know, my view is, I'm okay with charity. I actually think that helping save lives with food and medicine for millions of people and especially babies and children. I mean, even if it did nothing for the United States directly, I would be okay with spending some of the money of American taxpayers on that, especially as opposed to say a war in Afghanistan or the latest sort of bomber program that is expensive and more than the Americans need. So, I push back on the US should never do charity argument. But leaving that aside, you don't need that argument to focus on the importance of USAID.
And I want to, before I get into the national interest side, I do want to say I am empathetic with why it is unpopular. Because at a moment when so many average Americans feel like the US government has not taken care of them, and this is why you see so much backlash against all of the illegal immigrants that have not been addressed by administrations for many years, and why there's so much backlash against the US establishment, whether it's Democrat or Republican, in saying, "What about the average working American? What about our healthcare? What about our public school system? What about things that you should care a lot more about than sending aid to brown people around the world?" Which is essentially what USAID is mostly doing. I get that. And in that regard, it's an easy target for Trump. It's a particularly easy target for Elon Musk. I would ask first, "Why tax cuts for and regulations written by billionaires in the United States before poor people and Americans?" That would be my higher priority if I was really, really angry and antagonized by how badly money is being spent in the US. But that's a different story.
The point is you don't need to make the argument of charity. It is very clear that US foreign aid supports America's economic and national security interests. It is growing markets for consumers, for American businesses and products all over the world. The US has the biggest businesses. It has the biggest market. It benefits the most from other countries around the world having more capacity to sustainably consume and engage with those businesses. America benefits in having more health security by containing disease and pandemics because those diseases and pandemics don't suddenly stop at the American border. The US benefits from aid that reduces insurgencies creating instability that leads to more illegal migration all over the world, many of whom ultimately end up in the United States. It creates more economic opportunity and safety and security in origin countries. And that is a carrot that matters. It's not just about sticks. It's a carrot for economic statecraft that gives the Americans more influence as opposed to say the Russians, or more importantly the Chinese.
Because getting rid of USAID and cutting back on all these programs creates a vacuum. And that is an opportunity for adversaries. I've already seen ministers from large African countries who have their American programs getting cut off, reaching out immediately to their counterparts, ministers in China saying, "Are you willing to send in the programs to replace the Americans that are leaving?" And China doesn't have the economic wherewithal, the Americans do, but they certainly will seize opportunities that are economically useful to them, long-term, because they have a much longer-term perspective on these things than a US administration that's gone in four years. So I worry about that.
I think that USAID has been America's principle interlocutor with civil society in developing countries. And to the extent that we care about those countries having systems that are more aligned with the values and standards that the United States has historically promoted, then you don't want to undermine that and allow the Chinese to come in, which has very little interest in civil society, indifferent to civil society. It's a source of intelligence for the United States. And we've seen that even if it's sometimes uncomfortable for the local governments who aren't necessarily in favor of that. It is true that all USAID projects are probably not going to ultimately be killed, that the State Department is going to take it over and Marco Rubio has said that, "There's a lot of corruption in USAID, and a lot of this money is misspent, and is spent badly, and breaks executive orders," and I am sure that is true, and I am sure that that corruption needs to be addressed. It wouldn't surprise me. The US is an incredibly bloated government system. But shooting first and asking questions later tends to kill innocencts. And that is of course the approach here. And the reality is, that Elon and Trump and their ability to act and be destructive is much greater than the damage control that the secretary of state can do at this moment. And the State Department just does not have the people or the infrastructure to execute on a lot of these programs once USAID is shut down.
And the message that this is really sending to allies is that the United States is an unreliable partner. You cannot count on it. That what they say to you in one administration is not going to be consistent in a second administration, in a way that is not true with other countries, most other countries, around the world. And so I continue to believe, as I did before Trump was inaugurated, that the US is going to see a lot of wins. A lot of countries are going to bend to his will because he's more powerful and he's willing to use that power directly. But that does not mean that the United States will long-term succeed in a law of the jungle approach, an approach which is all stick and no carrot, even when the stick is very, very big, but you can't wield it effectively for a long period of time. And other countries are learning that carrots are kind of smart. I mean, the Chinese originally perfected the all stick and no carrot approach and then saw that the United States was more effective in a lot of countries because they also had economic statecraft. They also had these commercial levers, and so the Chinese started saying, "Oh, we need to figure out how to deliver aid to a lot of these countries, doesn't have to be transparent, can work right with the governments, but ultimately that's going to give us more influence in these countries." And that is something that President Trump and his administration in the early weeks at least seemed to be jettisoning.
So I think this is Pennywise pound foolish. I think it is short-term beneficial to Trump and will look like a win for him and his base and long-term will undermine US power around the world and will of course make the world a less stable place. So on balance, I think this is a problem. It's not something that I think is going to go well. I would love to be proven wrong. I'll be watching it carefully and I think it's a good thing to be debating.
So that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Europe's new future with Trump 2.0
As Donald Trump returns to the White House, European leaders are reassessing their reliance on the United States for security and economic stability. In a wide-ranging conversation on GZERO World, Ian Bremmer sits with Finnish President Alexander Stubb on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. They discuss the evolving role of Europe in an era of shifting alliances, economic uncertainty, and rising geopolitical risks. In other words, Europe's role in a Trump 2.0 era. Stubb expresses cautious optimism about Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine but underscores the need for Europe to take greater responsibility for its defense and technological leadership.
Stubb also acknowledges that Europe is facing a moment of reckoning. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling for increased defense spending and reduced reliance on U.S. security guarantees. Stubb agrees that Europe must strengthen its strategic position but remains wary of the region’s economic competitiveness, particularly in technology, where the US holds a clear advantage.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
- Envisioning Europe's path forward with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola ›
- Trump will keep supporting Ukraine but demand more of NATO: report. ›
- Europe's reaction to US election win: Gloom and despair ›
- Meloni joins Trump at Mar-a-Lago — with Europe’s economy on the line ›
- Europe plans for Putin & Trump 2.0 ›
Finnish President Alexander Stubb smiles during an event with a blurred "World Economic Forum" background. The text art reads: "GZERO World with Ian Bremmer—the podcast."
What Trump's return means for Europe, with Finnish President Alexander Stubb
Listen: On the GZERO World Podcast, Finnish President Alexander Stubb joins Ian Bremmer in Davos, Switzerland, where world leaders, business executives, and diplomats gathered for the annual World Economic Forum. Just days after President Trump was sworn in for a second term, the mood in Davos was that of cold pragmatism. As Trump made clear in his speech to the Forum, Europe can no longer rely on the kind of copacetic relationship with the United States it had enjoyed since World War II or even during his first term.
So, what does that mean for Europe—and the war in Ukraine? Finland’s President Alexander Stubb and Ian Bremmer discuss.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Elon Musk departs the office of Senate Minority Whip and incoming Senate Republican Leader-elect John Thune (R-SD) after a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. December 5, 2024.
GZERO Explains: How will DOGE work?
How will it work? The executive order requires every federal agency to hire at least four DOGE employees – a team lead, engineer, human resources specialist, and attorney – to identify potential spending, regulations, or jobs that can be slashed. Musk has said he aims to cut $2 trillion from the $6.75 trillion federal budget. How it will determine what can be cut has not been made public.
Can DOGE actually fire people? Right now, DOGE appears likely to operate in an advisory capacity to the White House, making recommendations to the Trump administration on where cuts might be made. When Trump implemented a hiring freeze on Jan. 20, he ordered the Office of Personnel and Management to work with DOGE to reduce the size of the government. Then, on Jan. 21, 2025, Trump reinstated Schedule F – a policy he tried to implement during his first term, only to see it rescinded by Joe Biden — reclassifying some policy-level federal employees as “at-will” employees. This strips them of some protections and makes it easier for Trump and his appointees to dismiss them.
Since then, anonymous reports from OPM employees claim that the agency is reporting to and issuing communications from DOGE staffers, making it appear that the two offices are working closely to reduce the number of federal employees.
Why does it matter? DOGE wants to modernize, and minimize, the federal government, which employed 2,260,ooo civilian employees as of 2023. However, it is expected to face backlash from judges, unions, federal employees, and the beneficiaries of services or agencies that are sent to the chopping block.