Elon Musk seen with Donald Trump
Credit: Bloomberg Photo
At this point, Elon Musk seems like he has stepped — fully formed — out of some sci-fi dystopia. Adding scaffolding to this argument was his recent call for people to join the newly created United States government department, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE – a ‘backronym’ referencing the Internet meme — is to be helmed by Musk himself alongside biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. The post on X advertised for ‘high-IQ revolutionaries’ who would be ‘willing to work 80+ hours per week’ for zero compensation.
This might sound like the plot of a satirical, boundary-pushing, dystopic story, but the reality is far less amusing. DOGE is a reminder of the growing entanglement between technology, wealth, and governance — and it’s a relationship that threatens the very foundations of democracy.
Both Ramaswamy and Musk are successful businessmen — billionaires — who have made their fortunes by working with the sort of technologies that routinely outpace government regulation. In fact, many of these industries have worked closely with the government too.
Musk’s company SpaceX, for example, has over $10 billion in government contracts, making agencies like NASA heavily dependent on it. Companies that Musk is involved with including Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink are facing at least 20 different investigations and lawsuits from US government agencies. At DOGE, the person at the helm of these companies will be advising the government on how these agencies should work. The term ‘conflict of interest’ comes to mind.
Musk and Ramaswamy are emblematic of a troubling trend: billionaires stepping into spheres of influence traditionally reserved for elected officials. DOGE is not an official government department — US law requires Congress to approve the creation of new agencies, and this hasn’t happened. But the fact that Musk and Ramaswamy are expected to be advisers to the incoming US president shows that they would be in a position to influence policy from the inside. This is especially worrying, considering that the industries they represent — social media, biotech, and tech — are already struggling with weak regulatory frameworks.
This is not just an American problem. As the world’s most powerful country, the US sets the tone for global policy, especially in technology. When tech giants shape governance in the US, the ripple effects are felt worldwide. Consider the influence of US-based social media platforms, which have transformed how people across the globe access information, organise protests, and even vote. These platforms already wield immense power over public discourse, often with little accountability. If billionaires are allowed to formalise their grip on governance, it’s not just Americans who will feel the effects.
The tech industry has always sold itself as a force for good, promising to connect the world and solve humanity’s biggest problems. But the reality is more complicated. Technology governance — the rules and policies that shape how technology is developed and used — has become a battleground for democracy itself. When governments fail to regulate technology effectively, it’s always the public that pays the price. Unchecked algorithms exacerbate inequality, surveillance tools undermine privacy, and digital platforms spread disinformation. Allowing tech billionaires to head policy bodies threatens to deepen these issues by putting those who profit most from weak regulations in positions of great influence.
DOGE raises uncomfortable questions about the future of democracy. Who should governments work for? Who is the ‘demos’ of democracies? It is not the oligarchs and the billionaires. It must be the common people; immortalised by Emma Lazarus on the Statue of Liberty: “the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Allowing tech billionaires to be within government and influence policy that will regulate their own industries subverts democratic processes. It creates a system where those with the most money can bend public institutions to their will, to make sure their own businesses flourish, give themselves tax breaks, and create policies that will make it even harder to control them. Meanwhile, those applying to work with them will be given the great prize of “tedious work, make lots of enemies & compensation is zero”.
As governments struggle to keep pace with the rapid growth of the tech industry, billionaires like Musk are stepping into the void. They claim to be solving problems, but their solutions often come at the expense of democratic accountability. Democracy does not need to be ‘efficient’. The chaotic, messy, slow process of debate, deliberation, and discussion is what ensures that governance reflects the will of the people, not just the interests of the powerful. If we allow technocrats and oligarchs to take over, we risk losing not just democratic institutions but also the values they represent.
If we cherish the ideals of democracy, we must ensure that technology serves the interests of the many, not just a privileged few. While Musk’s actions may seem distant or even amusing, the implications for a nation like India — where technology intersects deeply with inequality, governance, and rights — could not be more significant.
(Vidya Subramanian is associate professor at Jindal Global Law School (JGLS). X: @ vidyas42.)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.