Elon Musk Accused of Using Grok AI to Manipulate the U.S. Government and Access National Secrets

Billionaire Elon Musk is facing growing scrutiny over explosive allegations that his artificial intelligence platform, Grok, is being used by his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team to manipulate the inner workings of the U.S. federal government and potentially gain access to sensitive national secrets. According to a report from Reuters and interviews with multiple insiders familiar with the matter, DOGE has been quietly deploying a customized version of Grok within various federal departments, including the Department of Homeland Security, sparking concerns of conflicts of interest, data privacy violations, and even national security risks.

As Grok’s role expands from a mere chatbot to a tool embedded deep within federal bureaucracy, critics are now accusing Musk of blurring the lines between public service and private gain, raising serious questions about unchecked power, influence, and the future of AI in government.

At the center of the controversy is Musk’s DOGE initiative, a high-profile task force installed during President Donald Trump’s second term with a mandate to reduce government waste. While the project was marketed as a cost-cutting, efficiency-focused initiative, internal reports now suggest that DOGE’s real mission may be far more ambitious—and potentially dangerous.

Sources with direct knowledge of DOGE’s operations have confirmed that staffers are using Grok to analyze massive troves of federal data. This includes drafting reports, generating data analysis, and even pushing other government employees to integrate Grok into their own departments—despite a lack of official approval or proper security vetting.

The use of Grok within sensitive government systems could represent a direct violation of U.S. privacy and security laws. Experts in government ethics and technology have raised red flags over the possibility that Musk and his affiliated companies—such as xAI, which developed Grok—may be benefiting financially and competitively from privileged access to internal government datasets.

These datasets, in many cases, contain private information about millions of Americans and details about ongoing federal contracts. If Grok is learning from these data pools, it could be gaining a competitive advantage not just over other AI developers like OpenAI and Anthropic, but also over private contractors bidding on federal deals.

The implications are enormous. AI models, once trained on exclusive datasets, can become exponentially more powerful—and valuable.

Even more concerning is the allegation that DOGE staff attempted to promote Grok within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a department responsible for border security, cyberdefense, immigration, and terrorism response. DHS officials were reportedly told to use Grok despite the tool lacking official clearance for use within the agency.

 The potential exposure of national security data to Grok, a platform built and maintained by Musk’s private AI startup, has been described by privacy advocates as one of the most severe breaches of ethical boundaries in recent federal history.

One alarming possibility raised by government watchdogs is that Grok could be used not just for data analysis but also for political surveillance. Two insiders told Reuters that DOGE members have sought to train Grok to detect disloyalty among federal employees, specifically those who might not support Trump’s political agenda.

This echoes past fears of AI being weaponized for political ends—now seemingly unfolding in real time, under the radar of public awareness. In one Department of Defense sub-agency, employees were even informed that an “algorithmic tool” was monitoring their activity. While it has not been confirmed that this tool was Grok, the mere possibility is alarming.

The problem, according to legal experts, is not just ethical—it could be criminal. If Musk, in his role as a special government employee, had any direct influence over DOGE’s use of Grok, he may have violated federal conflict-of-interest statutes. These laws prohibit officials from engaging in government decisions that would financially benefit themselves or their private companies.

Richard Painter, former ethics counsel to President George W. Bush, pointed out that even the appearance of such self-dealing is damaging to public trust. “If Musk is involved in pushing Grok for use inside the government, that’s textbook conflict of interest,” said Painter. He added that such violations, while rarely prosecuted, carry steep penalties including fines and possible jail time.

In response to the growing backlash, DHS issued a vague denial, stating that DOGE had not officially pressured staff to use Grok. However, the agency refused to answer further questions about whether employees had actually used the tool or what data Grok may have accessed. The Department of Defense similarly denied that DOGE had been authorized to use AI tools on its networks, although officials admitted that all government computers are subject to baseline monitoring.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk has been conspicuously silent. Neither Musk, xAI, nor the White House have commented on the allegations. Musk previously announced that he would be scaling back his time with DOGE to just one or two days a week.

However, as a special government employee, he is still entitled to serve for up to 130 days per year, which could allow him to remain involved with DOGE long enough to influence major decisions. And even if he steps back formally, his hand-picked DOGE operatives continue to operate within the federal structure, often without clear oversight or accountability.

Among those operatives is Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old known online as “Big Balls,” who has quickly become one of the most visible faces of DOGE’s AI push. Alongside Kyle Schutt, another DOGE operative, Coristine has spearheaded efforts to deploy Grok and other AI systems inside government departments.

Neither individual has responded to inquiries about their roles or the extent of Grok’s integration.

Complicating matters is the murky status of AI policy within the federal government. Last year, DHS under President Biden introduced clear guidelines for the use of AI, allowing employees to use commercial platforms like ChatGPT only for non-sensitive tasks.

For more sensitive data, DHS created an internal, agency-controlled chatbot. But in May, DHS suspended employee access to all commercial AI tools, including ChatGPT, after misuse incidents were reported. If DOGE continued to promote Grok within DHS after this crackdown, it could represent a direct violation of standing DHS policy.

What makes this situation unprecedented is not just the deployment of a private AI tool within the federal government, but who owns it. Elon Musk is not a neutral contractor or third-party vendor. He is simultaneously a federal appointee, a major private businessman, and the sole owner of xAI, the company behind Grok.

This triad of influence creates a situation that many experts describe as uniquely dangerous. “You have one of the richest men in the world, holding sway over federal agencies, while simultaneously selling them a product that collects data and learns from it,” said Cary Coglianese, a federal ethics expert. “That is not innovation—that’s infiltration.”

The broader concern is that Grok is just the beginning. If DOGE successfully normalizes the use of proprietary AI tools with limited oversight, other billionaire-backed technologies could follow suit, embedding private interests deeper into public infrastructure. Without a transparent system of approvals, audits, and regulations, the risk of data leakage, political abuse, and unethical profiteering will only grow.

In the end, this controversy is not just about Grok or even Musk—it’s about who controls the data that shapes public policy. If Musk’s AI is quietly processing, analyzing, and perhaps even shaping that data behind closed doors, then the very foundation of American governance may be shifting from elected officials to unelected technocrats.

And if that technocrat also happens to be the world’s richest man, the implications are nothing short of seismic.

As Washington braces for further revelations, one thing is clear: the debate over the ethical use of AI in government is no longer theoretical. It’s already happening—and Elon Musk is at the center of it.