• Harmeet Dhillon is Trump's nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
• The prominent GOP lawyer made millions from her law firm — and $43,531 from X — last year.
• She's at least the third Trump nominee to make money as a content creator on Elon Musk's platform.

One of President Donald Trump's top law enforcement nominees made tens of thousands of dollars from posting online last year.

Harmeet Dhillon, a prominent Republican lawyer who has been nominated to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice, said in a financial disclosure made public on Thursday that she had made $43,531 from X's content-creator revenue program.

Dhillon has more than 1.1 million followers on X, and she frequently posts on the social media platform.

She's at least the third Trump nominee to have made money this way. National Institute of Health Director nominee Jay Bhattacharya made $11,995 from the program, while Sam Brown, a former Nevada GOP Senate candidate who's been nominated to be Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, made $5,169.

Under the revenue program, created by Elon Musk after he took over and renamed Twitter, premium users can earn payouts based on engagement from other premium users.

Bhattacharya, Brown, and Dhillon have all agreed to demonetize their accounts if confirmed to their roles.

Dhillon's main source of income was her work as a lawyer: She disclosed earning more than $2 million in income from her firm, Dhillon Law Group, last year. Her major clients, according to the disclosure, included President Trump and his campaign, Tucker Carlson, the Republican National Committee, Caitlyn Jenner, and X itself.

She also earned a $300,000 salary from the Center for American Liberty, a civil liberties-focused legal nonprofit she helped found in 2018, along with $50,000 from four paid speeches.

• Elon Musk says it "might make sense" to increase pay for members of Congress.
• He said it could help safeguard against corruption — an argument Democrats like AOC have long made.
• It's a reversal from December, when he helped tank a funding bill over a modest lawmaker pay raise.

Elon Musk seems to be changing his mind about whether members of Congress should get a raise.

"It might make sense to increase compensation for Congress and senior government employees to reduce the forcing function for corruption," the Department of Government Efficiency head wrote on X on Thursday. "The latter might be as much as 1000 times more expensive to the public."

It's a far cry from December, when Musk helped tank a bipartisan government funding bill in part because it included a modest pay increase for members of Congress.

Musk's comment on congressional and government salaries came in response to a video claiming that members of Congress are enriching themselves by steering congressional funds toward non-government organizations that they're affiliated with.

Members of Congress are already prohibited by law from using their official positions for personal gain, and outside income often comes in the form of book proceeds.

Nonetheless, the argument Musk is making about corruption and salaries echoes those made by Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and good-government experts, who have warned that members of Congress may be tempted to trade stocks or be lured into employment in the private sector due to their stagnant salaries.

Rank-and-file members of the House and Senate currently make $174,000 — a figure that hasn't changed since 2009, since lawmakers have proactively blocked a cost of living adjustment every year since then.

If their salaries had kept pace with inflation since 2009, they would have been paid $217,900 last year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Though that $174,000 salary is far higher than what most Americans make, lawmakers and experts have pointed to the cost of maintaining two residences, as well as the importance of the job, as a reason why the salary should be increased.

• When DOGE was first announced, GOP lawmakers expected to be at the forefront.
• One month into Trump's presidency, they're largely in the backseat.
• One key DOGE-focused lawmaker says he wants to see lawmakers get more input.

When Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy made a splashy visit to Capitol Hill in December to tout their new "Department of Government Efficiency," the excitement among Republican lawmakers was palpable.

GOP leaders moved to set up a DOGE subcommittee led by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Lawmakers established DOGE caucuses in both chambers to serve as the focal point for legislation, and in the House, it was even bipartisan. "If this is where that conversation is going to happen," Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida told BI at the time, "I'm happy to be at the table."

Two months later, it's clear that Congress is not where the most consequential DOGE conversations are happening, or where key decisions are being made.

Instead, even Republicans who broadly support DOGE's mission have been left watching from the sidelines as Musk's team has shuttered entire agencies, frozen federal funds, and asserted control over the federal workforce, spurring a flurry of lawsuits and fears of a constitutional crisis along the way. At the same time, those same lawmakers are still bearing the brunt of the public outcry over DOGE cuts, with some now public suggesting that the effort should slow down.

Rep. Blake Moore of Utah, one of the three GOP co-chairs of the House DOGE caucus, recalled on Tuesday feeling "very encouraged" when Musk visited the Capitol in December, when lawmakers took the microphones in a subterranean auditorium to offer up the variety of ideas that they'd spent years developing around government efficiency and eliminating waste.

"There was just very much an interest in taking and collecting input for stuff that we've already been working on," Moore told BI. "I want to see more of that."

Musk's shock and awe campaign across the federal bureaucracy has made parallel efforts in Congress feel quaint. Later on Tuesday, a handful of members of the House DOGE caucus held a "DOGE Day" press conference, where they highlighted various bills aimed at clamping down on government waste. When it was time for questions, those lawmakers weren't asked about any of those bills — they were instead pressed over the cuts that Musk's team has already been making.

Rep. Aaron Bean of Florida, another co-chair, told reporters that the "uncomfort factor" for members of Congress came from the speed of it all.

"A lot of members of Congress haven't seen this speed," Bean said. "But I can tell you, it has to be done."

Republicans on Capitol Hill have continued to assert that they remain behind the steering wheel when it comes to the flow of federal funds and the structure of the federal bureaucracy, even as they're increasingly in the back seat. Others blame the perennially slow pace of congressional legislating.

"Congress will have its time," Rep. Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican who's in the DOGE caucus, told BI. "But as slow as Congress moves, and as difficult as it is to get 535 opinions, this is one thing where the executive branch has come in."

Some argue that the administration's moves to withhold congressionally approved funding and fire thousands of workers merely constitute a "review," and that Congress will have the final say. Others, such as Republican Rep. Michael Cloud of Texas, say their main concern is the longevity of the executive actions driven by President Donald Trump and Musk.

"We've got to codify what President Trump is doing," Cloud, a member of both the DOGE caucus and the DOGE subcommittee, told BI. "Otherwise, it's just a great blip on the radar."

Sen. Rand Paul is urging the administration to send a rescission bill to Congress, arguing that it would be "messier" to attempt impoundment, which would "likely be challenged in court" and take some time to resolve.

"Rescission won't be challenged in any way," the Kentucky Republican told BI. "It's a much cleaner way of doing it."

Congress played second fiddle to DOGE yet again on Wednesday, when Greene's DOGE subcommittee held a hearing centered on the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID. Over the course of nearly two hours of testimony and questioning, few of the panel's Republican members acknowledged the elephant in the room — that the agency is already shuttered and nonfunctional.

After the hearing, Greene insisted that Congress remained at the forefront of DOGE.

"We're actually filling our role here on the DOGE subcommittee," Green said, "looking into the waste, fraud, and abuse, making our recommendations, and hopefully putting that into legislative actions."

• Rep. Rich McCormick faced a town hall full of constituents angry over DOGE last week.
• Now, he seems the government-efficiency initiative is moving too quickly.
• "I'm concerned that maybe we're moving a little bit too fast," he said.

Last week, Rep. Rich McCormick faced a town hall full of voters angry about President Donald Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency's swift reshaping of the federal government.

Now, the Georgia Republican says he's worried the government-efficiency initiative is moving too quickly.

"I'm not against anything he's doing, but I'm concerned," McCormick said on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's "Politically Georgia" podcast on Monday. "I'm concerned that maybe we're moving a little bit too fast."

At a town hall in Roswell, Georgia on Thursday night, McCormick fielded a variety of contentious questions about the Trump administration's recent moves, with many of the questions focusing on the firing of federal workers and the cutting of certain programs.

The Georgia congressman, who represents a conservative-leaning district, said on Monday that he'd prefer a more methodical approach to cutting than the rapid pace that Elon Musk's DOGE is setting, including the shuttering of entire government agencies.

"We should have impact studies on each department as we do it, and I'm sure they can do that," McCormick said. "But I think if we're moving really, really rapidly, we don't know the impact."

McCormick also suggested that he's not the only House Republican who's concerned by the pace of DOGE's work.

"I think there's debate of how rapidly we're moving," McCormick said. "Some people who are very conservative also think we should move much more slowly."

In response to a request for comment, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in a statement to BI that Trump has "enjoyed broad support" for his cost-cutting initiatives.

"The spending freeze is already uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse across federal agencies and ensuring better stewardship of taxpayer dollars, including for American farmers and families," Kelly said. "Ultimately, President Trump will cut programs that do not serve the interests of the American people and keep programs that put America First, just as 77 million voters elected him to do."

• Trump and Elon Musk keep talking up the idea of sending some DOGE savings to Americans.
• GOP lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, keep batting it down.
• The president can't do this on his own — he'd need Congress to approve it.

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk keep talking up the "DOGE Dividend" — turning a portion of the Department of Government Efficiency's eventual savings into checks to taxpayers.

But for the DOGE checks to become reality, Congress would have to authorize it. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told reporters as much on Thursday, pointing to the ongoing budget reconciliation process on Capitol Hill.

So far, most Republicans aren't biting — including House Speaker Mike Johnson.

"I mean, politically, that would be great for us," Johnson said at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday. "But if you think about our core principles, right? Fiscal responsibility is what we do."

"We have a $36 trillion federal debt, we have a giant deficit that we're contending with," Johnson continued. "I think we need to pay down the credit card."

That's similar to what other Republicans are saying — that Congress should be balancing the federal budget and paying down the national debt before any talk of sending out checks.

"If there's money left after we address inflation, and the debt, and the deficit, it's always a good idea to send taxpayers their money back," Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming told reporters. "But when we're $36 trillion in debt, we've dug ourselves a pretty big hole."

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky told reporters that he's "all for it after they balance the budget." Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told Business Insider he'd "want to see the details" of the plan.

With Democrats largely shunning DOGE, the legislative path for the checks is largely closed off — unless Republicans change their mind.

That hasn't stopped Musk from talking it up.

During his own appearance at CPAC on Thursday, the billionaire businessman likened the checks to the "spoils of battle" and expressed optimism about the idea.

"I talked to the president, he's supportive of that, and so it sounds like that's something we're going to do," Musk said.

The "DOGE Dividend" was first proposed by investor James Fishback, who pitched the checks as a way to engage the mass public in DOGE's efforts and pay "restitution" to taxpayers.

According to Fishback's formulation, 79 million households — those that are net taxpayers — would receive $5,000 checks in 2026, funded by 20% of the money saved by DOGE.

That's based on an assumption that DOGE cuts $2 trillion from the federal budget. In recent weeks, Musk and Trump have revised that goal down to about $1 trillion.

• An investment banker floated paying some of DOGE's savings back to taxpayers in the form of checks.
• Elon Musk said he'd "check with" Trump about it.
• Lawmakers on Capitol Hill would need to approve it, and it's facing some skepticism.

What if some of the money saved by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could be paid back to Americans as checks from the government?

That idea, promoted by investment manager James Fishback, gained significant traction online on Tuesday after Musk said on X that he would "check with" President Donald Trump about it. "Obviously, the President is the Commander-in-Chief, so this is entirely up to him," Musk later added.

After the initial publication of this story, Trump acknowledged the idea at an event in Florida, saying that a "new concept where we give 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens" is now "under consideration."

"I literally had a dream about this," Fishback told BI during a Wednesday phone interview about how he and a colleague at his firm came up with the idea. "Then we woke up and started working on it, and put it on paper over the course of about two and a half hours."

Fishback told BI that he's meeting with a variety of House and Senate offices in Washington, DC this week, and that he's emailed the proposal to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

In any event, the idea still has a long way to go. It would take an act of Congress to enact the proposal, which is already encountering some early skepticism from lawmakers in both parties.

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina told BI that he believes "sending checks is not the smartest way to spend savings" and that he'd rather use the savings to "drive down the debt."

"I have three grandchildren, all under the age of eight years old," Tillis said. "Their fractional share of the national debt is about $100,000. I think maybe it makes sense to help pay down that debt obligation."

Responding to the proposal on X, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin wrote that he'd be "happy" to entertain the idea "once we balance the budget."

"The first use of that money needs to actually be reducing spending, so we can have a balanced budget, so Americans can keep their hard earned dollars," Johnson told BI. "Not only from a standpoint of not having to pay taxes, but so we don't inflate them away."

Fishback said he welcomes the conversation and agrees that paying down the debt should be a top priority. But he said that the checks would be a crucial way to generate public interest and buy-in to DOGE's goals — and he suggested that public pressure could push potential critics to back his populist proposal.

"I don't see how you can go to a town hall meeting, when you go back to your district, and say you voted against President Trump's DOGE dividend," Fishback said. "You're going to have a lot of questions to answer from a lot of angry, aggrieved taxpayers."

How the 'DOGE Dividend' would work

Under the rosiest version of Fishback's proposal, some Americans would receive a one-time $5,000 check in 2026, paid for the savings generated by DOGE.

There are a couple of caveats.

For one, Fishback's plan is based on an assumption of $2 trillion in savings, the goal that was originally set for DOGE. Musk and Trump have since halved that number, telling Sean Hannity in a Tuesday night interview on Fox News that "the overall goal is to try to get a trillion dollars out of the deficit."

Additionally, the checks — funded by 20% of DOGE's overall savings — would only be sent to net payers of federal income tax, which Fishback estimates to be 79 million households.

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who said he generally supports "the principle of taking that money and returning it to the people," said he wants to see those savings put toward a child tax credit.

"That's what I prefer to do," Hawley told BI, pointing to the costs borne by families with multiple children. "We ought to direct relief to them, and this would be a great way to fund it."

Fishback countered that his proposal is "not an economic stimulus package" and is about paying "restitution" to taxpayers whose money has been misused.

"The only criterion that we care about is whether or not you have paid federal income tax. If you have, then you deserve restitution. If you haven't, then you haven't been aggrieved," Fishback said. "The people who get restitution are the people who paid, and did not feel like they got a good value out of it."

Meanwhile, Democrats largely want nothing to do with DOGE, owing to the recent shuttering of federal agencies and mass firing of federal employees.

"It's just a con. It's not about saving money. It's about stealing from people," Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told BI, referring to DOGE broadly. "This is all a pretty simple effort to steal from regular people to enrich the very wealthy."

This story has been updated to reflect Trump's acknowledgment of the idea later on Wednesday.

• Trump's nominee for NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, made $11,995 from posting on X last year.
• It's a relatively uncommon income source for a nominee for a top government job.
• He also made $457,743 from teaching at Stanford and $25,772 from giving speeches.

One of President Donald Trump's top health-related nominees has had a unique income source over the past two years: posting on social media.

Jay Bhattacharya, Trump's nominee for director of the National Institutes of Health, made $11,995 last year as part of X's content-creator revenue program, according to a financial disclosure filed this month.

Under that program, which Elon Musk instituted after he took over the social media platform and renamed it, users with a premium account can receive payouts based on engagement from other premium users.

Before Trump announced his nomination in late November, Bhattacharya was a frequent poster on X, where he boasts more than 680,000 followers. He joined the creator revenue program in 2023. His ethics agreement says Bhattacharya has "ceased creating content for compensation" and has "ceased sharing in revenue for content creation for X."

Bhattacharya rose to prominence in 2020 as a critic of COVID-19 lockdowns and was a coauthor of the "Great Barrington Declaration," which promoted a "herd immunity" strategy against the virus. In a statement, a White House spokesman, Kush Desai, argued that Americans had "lost confidence in the medical apparatus that let us down during the COVID pandemic" and touted Bhattacharya as the "perfect pick" for the role.

"Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has been a leading voice in support of greater transparency and efficacy in our healthcare bodies, and that's exactly why he is the perfect pick to lead the NIH and help deliver on President Trump's resounding mandate to Make America Healthy Again by restoring confidence, competence, and accountability in health care," Desai said. "We look forward to his swift confirmation by the Senate."

Bhattacharya's main occupation isn't posting on X: He earned $457,743 last year as a professor at Stanford University.

He also made thousands of dollars from paid speeches: $20,000 from the conservative Bradley Impact Fund in October, $3,500 from the Global Liberty Institute in July, and $2,272 from Hillsdale College in October.

Bhattacharya also owns thousands of dollars' worth of stock in Walmart, Nvidia, and Taiwan Semiconductor, which he has agreed to divest if confirmed.

Bhattacharya did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump's nominees are required to file public financial disclosures describing how they made money in recent years. Recent filings include those from Pam Bondi, the attorney general; Kash Patel, the nominee for FBI director; Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence; and Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense.

• Some Republicans are beginning to speak up against DOGE-led cuts to federal jobs.
• It tends to happen when those cuts impact their home states.
• They've made sure to emphasize their support for government efficiency as they've spoken out.

As the Department of Government Efficiency continues to make swift cuts to the federal workforce and government spending, a handful of Republicans have begun to push back.

They're not criticizing the existence of DOGE or decrying Elon Musk as an "unelected bureaucrat," as Democrats have.

In fact, they've each taken pains to emphasize their support for making the government work more efficiently as they've spoken up.

Yet in a stream of recent social media posts, interviews, and public statements, a growing number of Republicans have begun to criticize aspects of DOGE's work, saying that the cuts are too rapid and indiscriminate or warning that their particular states will suffer as a result.

In a social media post on Saturday, Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy suggested his state would suffer if new hires at the Federal Bureau of Investigation were terminated.

"I am all for efficiency and ultimately downsizing the federal government, but firing large numbers of new FBI agents is not the way to achieve this," Cassidy wrote. "Louisiana specifically benefits from newly hired FBI agents. We need to add to our law enforcement, not take away."

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said that recent reductions in the federal workforce, including cuts to the National Park Service, were "leaving holes in our communities."

"I share the administration's goal of reducing the size of the federal government, but this approach is bringing confusion, anxiety, and now trauma to our civil servants," Murkowski wrote on X. "Indiscriminate workforce cuts aren't efficient and won't fix the federal budget, but they will hurt good people who have answered the call to public service to do important work for our nation.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire teamed up to urge President Donald Trump's administration to exempt members of the defense industrial base from the Musk-inspired buyout program. They cited the impact it would have on a shipyard on the border of their two states.

"Our shipyards cannot afford to reduce their workforces," the duo wrote in a letter sent last week. "While we continue to identify opportunities to improve efficiency, reductions to the size of our defense industrial workforce cannot be one of them."

Republican Sen. John Curtis, meanwhile, told the Utah-based Standard-Examiner that if there was "one thing" he could change about DOGE, it would be to slow it down: "It's moving so fast, it's not really factoring in the human element. That these are real lives, real people. They have kids. And we're really adding a tremendous amount of stress, even to jobs that are not going to go away.

"I think we can do a better job in Washington of bringing that compassion to the DOGE conversation, bringing that awareness that these are real people with real lives," Curtis continued. "We need to make sure we're always doing this with dignity as well."

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Roughly 75,000 federal employees accepted the "buyout" offered by the Trump administration, which purports to allow workers to agree to resign while being paid through the end of September. The legality of that offer is still being challenged in court.

Additionally, thousands of recently hired federal employees working at a variety of federal agencies — including the Forest Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Department of Veterans Affairs — were fired last week.

• Trump nominated former GOP Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer to be his labor secretary.
• She supported pro-union legislation in the House, drawing praise from Democratic senators.
• DOGE and Trump's recent moves are eroding her support from the left side of the aisle.

When President Donald Trump nominated former Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer to be his secretary of labor, the Oregon Republican seemed primed to be Democratic senators' favorite nominee.

She had sponsored pro-labor legislation, had the support of some labor leaders, and quickly won measured praise from Democrats eager to show their willingness to work with the new administration. Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, her home-state senator, announced in late January that he planned to support her.

Then came Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, a freeze of federal grants, the sudden shuttering of two federal agencies, and swift efforts to reduce the federal workforce.

"We cannot have business as usual as Trump allows his unelected sidekick Elon Musk to undertake an authoritarian administrative coup by dismantling agencies, disregarding our laws, and dishonoring our Constitution," Merkley said in a statement earlier this week. "While I would have voted for Lori Chavez-DeRemer to serve as Secretary of Labor, as long as Trump and Elon's illegal actions persist, I will not vote to confirm any cabinet nominees."

As Musk's machinations in the federal government continue, Democratic resistance has awoken. Fewer Democrats are voting for Trump's nominees, and more of them are showing up for protests outside various agencies that have come into DOGE's crosshairs.

Chavez-DeRemer is now a potential recipient of some of that backlash. In interviews with BI this week, several Democratic senators offered a variety of warning signs for the labor secretary nominee ahead of her confirmation hearing next week.

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who's broadly struck a positive note about the Oregon Republican, told BI that Trump and DOGE's potential plans for the labor department itself would play a pivotal role in whether Democrats ultimately support her.

"I have a feeling much of the hearing is going to focus on, is there going to be a Department of Labor, or is there an effort to destroy it?" Kaine said. "If it appears that there's an effort to completely undo the Department of Labor, that could get in her way."

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told BI on Thursday that despite having a "good" meeting with her "early on," he would not support Chavez-DeRemer due to Trump's recent firing of a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board, causing the agency to lose a quorum and become unable to function. That move is being challenged in court.

"I'm not going to support any nominees that are that are cool with unconstitutional policy," Murphy said. "I have heard nothing from her to suggest that she opposes anything the president has done, and that's not an accident."

And Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who'd suggested in November that Chavez-DeRemer's nomination represented a test of the GOP's commitment to labor, demurred when asked about her nomination this week. "I haven't met with her yet," Warren said. "So I just don't have anything else to say."

Chavez-DeRemer doesn't only have issues with Democrats. Sen. Rand Paul, the libertarian-minded GOP senator from Kentucky, has declared that he will not support her owing to her support for the PRO Act, a union-backed bill that would strengthen workers' ability to form unions while overriding state-level "right-to-work" laws.

Paul, who has predicted more than a dozen GOP senators might vote the same way as him, told BI this week that he would reconsider his stance on Chavez-DeRemer if she recanted her support for the bill.

"If she wanted to make a public statement saying that her support for the PRO Act was incorrect and she no longer does, then I'd think about her nomination," Paul said.

While her support may be slipping among Democrats, Chavez-DeRemer's nomination doesn't appear to be imperiled altogether. Other Republicans who oppose the PRO Act have said they'll support her anyway, and that they're willing to defer to Trump. And some Democrats, including Sens. Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Peter Welch of Vermont, told BI they still haven't made up their mind.

The Senate has also managed to confirm nominees far more controversial than Chavez-DeRemer thus far, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Pete Hegseth.

• The House's DOGE committee held a hearing on Wednesday about improper payments and fraud.
• In reality, it was all about Elon Musk.
• Democrats used the hearing to spotlight Musk and DOGE's recent antics in the executive branch.

The official reason for Wednesday's hearing, convened in a cramped, pastel-walled room in the second floor of a labyrinthine House office building, was to examine improper payments and fraud.

In practice, it was mostly about Elon Musk.

Over the course of two hours, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency met for the first time against the backdrop of a DOGE-led blitz across the federal government that's spurred numerous lawsuits and ignited Democratic resistance.

"We can't just sit here today and pretend like everything is normal, and that this is just another hearing on government efficiency," said Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, the top Democrat on the committee. "While we're sitting here, Donald Trump and Elon Musk are recklessly and illegally dismantling the federal government."

The House's DOGE subcommittee was established to support the Musk-led "Department of Government Efficiency" in the executive branch. While some Democrats have expressed an eagerness to work with Musk, those lawmakers didn't end up on this committee. Instead, the party selected some of its most ostentatious brawlers to prosecute the case against Musk.

For Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the committee's chairwoman, it was a high-stakes moment. Four years ago, a bipartisan majority of the House voted to bar the Georgia Republican from serving on any committee for the entirety of her first term, owing to her history of violent and conspiratorial rhetoric. Now, she's chairing one of the most high-profile committees in the House.

As she led the hearing, Greene largely eschewed the theatrics for which she's known, using her opening remarks to offer a relatively boilerplate disquisition on the national debt.

"This is not a Democrat problem. This is not a Republican problem. This is an American problem," Greene said. "We, as Republicans and Democrats, can still hold tightly to our beliefs, but we are going to have to let go of funding them in order to save our sinking ship."

Democrats on the committee took a decidedly different approach, using the forum to attack Musk, DOGE, the machinations of the billionaire businessman's young lieutenants, his potential conflicts of interests, and President Donald Trump's recent firing of inspectors general across the federal government. Stansbury even invited Musk to testify before the committee, alluding to his eagerness to "engage with members of Congress on social media."

The most dramatic moment of the hearing came when Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of California, referring to Greene's display of nude photos of Hunter Biden during a 2023 hearing, unveiled what he called a "dick pick" — a posterboard plastered with Musk's face.

"This is not about working with the richest man on the planet," Garcia said. "This committee wants to empower the richest person in the world to hurt people."

Democratic Rep. Greg Casar of Texas grilled witnesses on Trump's recent firing of inspectors general, the independent officials at agencies throughout the government whose jobs include investigating waste and fraud.

"If this committee were serious about rooting out waste from our federal government, then today's whole hearing would be about how Musk and Donald Trump are firing the independent watchdogs who've done this work for decades," Casar said.

Both sides of the dais largely agreed on the substance of the hearing: that improper payments and fraud in the federal government are worth addressing. But as with most congressional hearings, the testimony and questioning were largely for the cameras, and Greene found herself in the unusual position of bemoaning that Democrats had decided to "make a political theater of the whole thing."

"If they want to make this a place to create partisan attacks and future campaign ads, they're really going to be on the losing side of the issue," Greene told reporters.

Toward the end of the hearing, Republican Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas bemoaned the direction that the proceedings had taken.

"All we've heard about for most of this hearing on the other side of the aisle is Elon Musk, Elon Musk, Elon Musk," Gill said.

• The Trump administration has frozen USDA grants, impacting farmers.
• Now, a key Democratic group says they'll hold vulnerable House Republicans "accountable" for it.
• It's an early look at how Trump's early moves could impact the 2026 midterms.

The Trump administration's freezing of US Department of Agriculture grants is leaving some farmers in the lurch. Now, a key Democratic group is aiming to make it a campaign issue.

In a memo obtained exclusively by Business Insider, House Majority PAC — a super PAC aligned with House Democrats — says they plan to hold "accountable" several House Republicans who face potentially competitive reelection bids in 2026.

"Multiple vulnerable House Republicans representing tens of thousands of farms are now standing by as Trump freezes hundreds of millions of dollars of funding that American farmers were promised," the memo reads. "House Republicans are leaving American farmers out to dry, and will have some explaining to do next week when they head back to their districts."

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order halting the disbursement of funds authorized by Democrats' signature 2022 climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, to allow the administration to review whether those funds are consistent Trump's priorities.

Some of that funding has impacted grants and loans from the Department of Agriculture for environmental improvements, with farmers saying they haven't received the money they were previously guaranteed. That's even after Trump's initial move to halt all federal grants was rescinded.

A spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture told Business Insider that the agency would be in touch with "interested parties" once Brooke Rollins, Trump's nominee to lead the department, was confirmed by the Senate and "has the opportunity to analyze these reviews."

"The Trump Administration rightfully has asked for a comprehensive review of all contracts, work, and personnel across all federal agencies," the spokesperson said. "Anything that violates the President's Executive Orders will be subject for review."

House Majority PAC listed nine Republicans they're targeting, including:

• Rep. David Valadao of California
• Rep. Gabe Evans of Colorado
• Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa
• Rep. Zach Nunn of Iowa
• Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana
• Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri
• Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska
• Rep. Rob Wittman of Virginia
• Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin

Each lawmaker represents a district encompassing thousands of farmers, according to 2022 US Department of Agriculture data. Three of them — Miller-Meeks, Nunn, and Van Orden — represent over 25,000 farmers each.

None of the lawmakers targeted by House Majority PAC responded to Business Insider's request for comment for this story.

While it's unclear whether the PAC will end up spending significantly on this particular issue, the group is certain to be a key player in the midterms, where Democrats will only have to flip a few seats to regain the majority in the House. In 2024, the group spent more than $256 million.

It also offers an early look at how Democrats hope to politically capitalize on some of the Trump's administrations early moves, which have revolved heavily around government funding.

In a statement for this story, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly did not directly address when the funds would be unfrozen, but referenced other issues that farmers may contend with.

"The Biden administration crushed American agriculture with regulatory uncertainty, crippling inflation, trade imbalances, and radical environmental policies. Thankfully, President Trump is already delivering relief by unleashing American energy and cutting ten regulations for every new regulation," Kelly said. "He will continue to make all agencies more efficient to better serve the American people, including our hardworking farmers."

• The government runs out of funding on March 14, and lawmakers are having a hard time making a deal.
• DOGE's actions in the federal government are contributing to that.
• "This DOGE bullshit has to end," one House Democrat said.

In a matter of weeks, the United States federal government could shut down for the first time in five years — with Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency being a key reason.

Republicans now control the White House, the Senate, and the House. Government funding has historically been a bipartisan affair, with Democrats supplying the majority of votes for every funding bill that passed the GOP-controlled House in the last two years. That's required both sides to come together on bills that, while not completely satisfactory to either side, are acceptable enough that both parties can tolerate them.

Democrats increasingly say that President Donald Trump's moves to reshape the federal government without congressional input, including the DOGE-led slashing of USAID and the short-lived federal grant freeze, make it nearly impossible to reach a deal, unless it stops.

"We shouldn't give them a single damn vote until we have demands met," Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told Business Insider. "If they want to pass massive cuts at these agencies, they're going to have to do it on their own."

"Things are going to have to change," Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts told BI. "This DOGE bullshit has to end, and the president has to respect our branch of government."

It's not just that Democrats disagree with what Trump and Republicans are doing, which is to be expected. It's that the Trump administration's recent moves to circumvent Congress's spending power have made lawmakers unsure whether any deal they strike amongst themselves will be further tweaked by Trump.

"If this president can say, I refuse to spend money the way it was appropriated, why would any bipartisan group of senators be able to come to and keep an appropriations deal going forward?" Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware told reporters this week. "I get it, there's some disagreement about USAID, but the much more fundamental fight is over whether an agreement in appropriations, that is a law, will be respected."

According to the Nixon-era Impoundment Control Act and subsequent court cases, it's illegal for a president to simply refuse to spend congressionally approved funds. Trump and his allies have long signaled that they view that law as unconstitutional and will challenge it in the courts.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a letter to colleagues on Monday that Trump's recent spending moves "must be choked off in the upcoming government funding bill," signaling a bid to use government funding as leverage to get Trump to change course. The following day, House Speaker Mike Johnson said that Jeffries had "laid out the foundation for a government shutdown."

Republicans are generally seen as unable to pass a government funding bill on their own in the House, owing to their extremely slim majority and the existence of a hardline conservative bloc that's unwilling to pass bills that don't include extremely steep cuts. Even if that were possible, the Senate's 60-vote "filibuster" rule means that Democratic cooperation is needed in the upper chamber.

For Republicans, there's an expectation that Democrats will play ball when it comes to government funding, especially given Johnson's frequent reliance on Democrats to pass funding bills in the last year or so. That's true even for the more Trump-skeptical in the GOP.

"There's no avoiding the cooperation that is required," Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told BI, adding that she believes Democrats' objections to Musk and funding freezes can be kept separate from the government funding fight. "It's too important. We've got to get this done."

But among Democrats, there's a sense that their general willingness to fund the government has been taken for granted and that if there is a shutdown, it will be Republicans' to own.

"It's up to the Republicans. They're in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House," Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin told BI. "So, you know, if Morticia and Cousin Itt and Uncle Fester can all agree on something, then we won't have a shutdown. My guess is they're going to have some difficulty."

If no government funding bill is passed by March 14, the federal government will run out of funding and shut down, aside from some essential functions.

That means federal workers would be at least temporarily out of work, airports would be delayed, national parks would be shuttered, and more.

Politically, shutdowns tend to be painful for the party in power. The last time that the government shut down was in December 2018, when Trump's demand for billions of dollars in border wall funding was unable to pass Congress. At 35 days, it remains the longest shutdown in American history.

• Elon Musk and DOGE plan to make "safety upgrades" to the country's air traffic control system.
• Sen. Ted Cruz, who chairs the committee overseeing the FAA, is on board.
• "I can't think of anyone better to help upgrade the technology to keep people safe," Cruz told BI.

Sen. Ted Cruz is getting behind Elon Musk and DOGE's plans to make upgrades to the country's sprawling air traffic control system.

"For some reason, Democrats and their acolytes in the media have decided that Elon Musk is the devil," the Texas Republican told Business Insider at the Capitol on Thursday. "He's an extraordinary entrepreneur, and I can't think of anyone better to help upgrade the technology to keep people safe."

Musk, along with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, announced the plans on Wednesday, with the billionaire businessman saying he and the DOGE team would "aim to make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system."

The White House has offered few details beyond that, and Cruz — the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the Federal Aviation Administration — indicated he didn't have further information beyond Wednesday's public announcement.

The Texas senator did say that he had full confidence in Musk handling the job.

"We have one of the world's premier technology CEOs with access to extraordinary engineering talent who can lend his expertise for how to bring air traffic control technology out of the 1950s and into the 21st century," Cruz said, later adding: "The extraordinary precision with which he runs SpaceX and every other company that he's leading should give us real comfort in his ability to navigate complicated technologies."

Cruz's assessment isn't shared by all.

Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, also of Texas, told reporters at a "Fire Elon Musk" press conference earlier on Thursday that Musk's moves at X — which suffered multiple outages as the Tesla CEO took it over — should give everyone pause.

"Elon Musk crashes and breaks everything he buys. He thinks he can buy our government. We cannot allow him to crash and break our air traffic control system," Casar said. "Not a big deal if your app doesn't open one day. It is a really big deal if Americans don't know whether or not their air safety is protected."

Much of the current air traffic control system's technology is outdated, and the deadly plane crash near Washington, DC last week has put the strained system under a microscope.

Cruz told reporters that "significant restrictions on helicopter traffic in and around" Reagan National Airport may be warranted, given that the crash was caused by a collision with a Blackhawk helicopter.

• Two House members are unveiling a bill that would ban DeepSeek's AI apps from US government devices.
• The bill is designed to stop China from obtaining sensitive information, just like the TikTok ban.
• "We've seen China's playbook before with TikTok," one of the bill's sponsors said.

Two lawmakers announced on Thursday that they're introducing a bill to ban Chinese startup DeepSeek's AI chatbot from government-owned devices.

The "No DeepSeek on Government Devices Act," sponsored by Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Republican Rep. Darin LaHood of Illinois, comes amid concerns that US citizens are sharing sensitive information — such as contracts and financial records — with the chatbot.

DeepSeek's sudden emergence shook Wall Street last month. The company has said its new R1 model matches the performance of US rivals such as OpenAI but at a lower training cost. DeepSeek's privacy policy states that user data is stored in China, prompting concerns that the Chinese Communist Party could access US user data.

In a statement, LaHood and Gottheimer referenced research published on Wednesday by the Toronto-based cybersecurity firm Feroot Security. The company said it had found DeepSeek contained a hidden code capable of transmitting user data to CMPassport.com, the online registry for China Mobile, a telecommunications company owned and operated by the Chinese government.

"DeepSeek's generative AI program acquires the data of US users and stores the information for unidentified use by the CCP," said LaHood in a statement to BI. "Under no circumstances can we allow a CCP company to obtain sensitive government or personal data."

Days after the release of its flagship model, DeepSeek became the most downloaded free app on Apple's App Store in the US.

Other countries have taken steps to block DeepSeek. Australia banned DeepSeek from all government devices on Tuesday on national security grounds. Last week, Italy's data protection authority said it had ordered DeepSeek to block its chatbot in the country.

LaHood and Gottheimer's proposal echoes the first steps that led to an effort to prevent TikTok from operating in the US.

"We've seen China's playbook before with TikTok," Gottheimer said in a statement. "We cannot allow it to happen again."

In December 2022, the Senate unanimously approved a bill to block federal employees from downloading or using the app on government devices.

In April 2024, the Biden administration passed legislation banning TikTok unless its parent company, ByteDance, divested the social media app.

That came into force on January 19, and TikTok was briefly unavailable in the US. On January 21, President Donald Trump signed an executive order giving TikTok a 75-day extension to comply with the law.

LaHood, Gottheimer, and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• The House's DOGE subcommittee has scheduled its first hearing.
• It's entitled "The War on Waste: Stamping Out the Scourge of Improper Payments and Fraud."
• The committee, separate from the organization Elon Musk is running, is likely to see lots of fights.

The House's DOGE committee has scheduled its first hearing for Wednesday, February 12, according to a notice obtained by Business Insider.

The House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, chaired by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, is set to hold a hearing entitled "The War on Waste: Stamping Out the Scourge of Improper Payments and Fraud."

The subcommittee, though separate from the Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk in the executive branch, is set to be one of the main public forums on Capitol Hill for Democrats and Republicans to clash over the Trump administration's efforts to reorganize the federal government.

There are also "DOGE" caucuses in both the House and Senate, where lawmakers in both parties have been discussing legislative proposals to improve government efficiency.

A spokesperson for Greene did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

On Monday, Greene sent a letter to the CEOs of PBS and NPR asking them to testify at a hearing in March about whether they should continue to receive government funding.

• Amid a blitz across the federal government, DOGE is set to take on the FAA next.
• Musk said that DOGE would "aim to make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system."
• It comes on the heels of a deadly plane crash near Washington DC.

On the heel of a deadly plane crash outside of Washington, DC, Elon Musk says the "Department of Government Efficiency" will be making changes to the country's air traffic control system.

Musk wrote on X that he and DOGE had President Donald Trump's support and "will aim to make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system."

He noted that over the weekend, the Federal Aviation Administration's safety notification system "failed for several hours."

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy confirmed the news saying Musk's team was "going to plug in to help upgrade our aviation system."

It was not immediately clear on Wednesday what changes Musk and DOGE planned to make, and the White House did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

Last week, an American Airlines flight collided with a military Blackhawk helicopter above the Potomac River near Washington, DC, killing all 67 people aboard both aircraft.

Trump and Vice President JD Vance blamed diversity initiatives for the incident. The National Transportation Safety Board has launched an investigation and expects the preliminary report to be available within 30 days of the crash.

According to the NTSB's latest update, the Blackhawk is still in the Potomac and holds key information for the investigation. The agency has completed interviews with the air traffic controllers involved.

In recent days, Musk's DOGE team has been on a blitz across the federal government, gaining access to the Treasury's payment processing system and seizing control of the US Agency for International Development, provoking outrage from Democratic lawmakers.

• The Democratic resistance is starting to make a comeback.
• Elon Musk and DOGE — not Trump — are driving much of the energy.
• One House Democrat told BI that he sees Musk as "the clear and present danger" right now.

Two weeks into President Donald Trump's second term, roughly two dozen Democratic lawmakers flocked to a rally just steps from the White House to protest an unpredictable billionaire's reshaping of the federal government.

They weren't there, for the most part, to talk about Trump. They were there to talk about Elon Musk.

"We have got to tell Elon Musk: Nobody elected your ass," Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California told a raucous crowd assembled on 14th Street outside the Treasury Building on Tuesday night.

Standing behind a podium emblazoned with the phrase "Nobody Elected Elon," lawmakers took turns blasting Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who leads the Department of Government Efficiency, as a greedy, unelected plutocrat bent on destroying the federal government for personal gain.

The rally, which organizers estimate drew more than 3,500 people, came in response to the news that Musk and his lieutenants had gained access to the Treasury's payment processing system.

Before the rally, a group of House Democrats engaged in a bit of theatrics, requesting to enter the Treasury building to perform oversight. They were rebuffed.

Rally-goers brought a variety of signs decrying Musk, including some calling for his deportation, decrying him as a "looter," and describing him as a "dangerous criminal" immigrant. Over the course of more than two hours, the crowd periodically erupted into chants of "lock him up" and "hey hey, ho ho, Elon Musk has got to go" as lawmakers attacked Musk and his companies in increasingly personal terms.

"Elon, this is the American people," Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts told the crowd. "This is not your trashy Cybertruck that you can just dismantle, pick apart, and saw the pieces of."

It was the second protest against Musk and DOGE in Washington in as many days. On Monday, a separate group of lawmakers joined a protest down the street outside the US Agency for International Development, which Musk and DOGE have worked to shutter and reorganize with Trump's approval.

After months of apparent listlessness since Trump's reelection, Democrats are once again beginning to engage in the type of resistance that defined the president's first term, spurred at first by the since-rescinded federal grant freeze and further galvanized by Musk's blitz through the federal government.

"Every single possible thing that you can measure is through the roof right now," Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told BI on Tuesday, citing increased phone calls to her office and small-dollar donations to her campaign. "That, to me, tells me that despite what narratives there may be about how people are feeling, or whether they're on the streets or not, they absolutely are mobilizing in a way that we have not seen, virtually ever."

"I've been getting a lot of calls over the past few days, and the interesting thing is none of them are about Donald Trump. They're all about Elon Musk," Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine wrote on X. "My constituents, and a majority of this country, put Trump in the White House, not this unelected, weirdo billionaire."

In response to a request for comment, a White House official defended DOGE's recent moves, saying the group is complying with the law.

"The ongoing operations of DOGE may be seen as disruptive by those entrenched in the federal bureaucracy, who resist change," the official told BI. "While change can be uncomfortable, it is necessary and aligns with the mandate supported by more than 77 million American voters."

Musk did not respond to a request for comment.

'It enables us to have a conversation'

On Capitol Hill, Democrats have been jolted from what had been a largely defensive posture. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has taken to holding near-daily press conferences on the Trump administration's government funding machinations, including three last week on the grant freeze and two more this week on Musk's incursion into the Treasury Department.

"DOGE is operating like a shadow government," Schumer told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday. Standing beside House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, he unveiled legislation cheekily titled the "Stop the Steal Act" to bar special government employees like Musk from accessing the Treasury payment system.

Some Democrats are painting Musk as even more dangerous than Trump, owing to the fact that he was not elected and is, therefore, less accountable to the public. Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Maryland Democrat who served on the January 6 committee, told BI that Musk is "in a completely different class" from Trump's "lawlessness and authoritarianism."

"This guy wants to be dictator of the world," Raskin said of Musk. "We've got to stop both Trump and Musk, but Musk right now is the clear and present danger."

Musk, the world's richest man, also happens to be a more promising target. Unlike Trump, who voters have long formed opinions about and whose controversies are less shocking after nine years on the American political scene, Musk represents an opportunity for Democrats to launch more populist lines of attack that have the potential to break through across party lines.

"It enables us to have a conversation with some of our constituents who really trust Trump and believe in him," Democratic Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont told BI. "Are the things that Elon Musk is doing making your life materially better? That, right now, is probably the more sticky and salient case that we can make."

It's unclear how far this burgeoning Democratic resistance will go.

"We could certainly put a million people in the streets, but Trump would probably unleash his pardoned Proud Boys and Oath Keepers on everybody and then declare martial law," Raskin said. "So I think you're going to see, instead, just a proliferation of hundreds and hundreds of protests across the country."

Before the events of the last two weeks, Democrats had often taken pains to express their openness to working with Trump — Schumer even floated working with Trump to rename the Gulf of Mexico, if the president worked with Democrats to lower costs.

Now, some Democratic senators have begun voting against Trump's nominees out of protest of Trump's actions, and lawmakers are facing calls to do more to resist the administration. Eventually, Democratic votes will likely be needed to raise the debt ceiling and pass government funding legislation.

Schumer has said that Democrats will focus only on Trump's most controversial nominees, brushing off the idea of broader obstructionist tactics. But after he briefly spoke outside the Treasury on Tuesday, he was met with chants of "shut down the Senate."

"God dammit, shut down the Senate," Democratic Rep. LaMonica Iver of New Jersey said at the rally after Schumer left. "We are at war."

• Trump administration officials say that more than 20,000 federal workers have accepted buyouts.
• That's still well below the White House's goal of 5 - 10% of federal employees taking the deal.
• One official told BI that they're expecting a "spike" in the numbers before the February 6 deadline.

More than 20,000 federal workers have accepted buyouts, according to two Trump administration officials.

After Axios reported on Tuesday that roughly 20,000 had accepted the offer, a White House spokesman disputed that report, telling BI that the actual figure was higher and that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would provide an update "at the appropriate time."

A spokesperson for OPM told BI that the 20,000 figure "isn't current," though didn't specify when it was from. They said the "number of deferred resignations is rapidly growing, and we're expecting the largest spike to come 24-48 hours before the deadline."

Last week, the Trump administration sent an email to all federal employees offering them full pay and benefits through the end of September 30 if they opted to resign by February 6, two days from now.

The White House has said it expects between 5% and 10% of federal employees to take the deal. With more than 2 million Americans employed by the federal government, that would mean between 100,000 and 200,000 people accepting the buyout.

According to the Partnership for Public Service, more than 100,000 workers voluntarily leave the federal government — whether via retirement or simply by quitting — every year. On average, the nonpartisan nonprofit found an annual attrition rate of 6%, within the range of the White House's buyout goals.

Democrats and labor unions have urged workers against taking the buyout offer, saying that President Donald Trump does not have the authority to make the offer and can't be trusted to follow through. Some federal employees formerly told BI that they're not certain they'd be paid through September if they choose to resign.

"If you accept that offer and resign, he'll stiff you," Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said in a speech on the Senate floor last week, addressing his remarks to federal workers. "Do not be fooled by this guy. You were here before he was here, and you'll be here after he was here."

Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency have touted the merits of the deal on X. Musk has floated using severance packages and early retirement offers to shrink the federal workforce since before Trump took office.

The government is also working hard to sell the offer. Between Wednesday night and Thursday, OPM updated its FAQ page and encouraged civil servants to seek jobs in the private sector or, if that doesn't appeal, use the 8 months to "travel to your dream destination."

• Elon Musk, the head of DOGE, is officially an employee of the US federal government.
• The White House confirmed his employment on Monday. He will not receive a paycheck.
• Musk is a "special government employee," a role that's not supposed to last more than 130 days.

Elon Musk is officially an employee of the United States federal government.

A White House spokesman confirmed to Business Insider on Monday that the Tesla and SpaceX founder was a "special government employee" and would not receive a paycheck for his service.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later told reporters at the White House that Musk has "abided by all applicable federal laws."

The government has historically used the "special government employee" classification for temporary workers who have particular expertise but don't intend to be employed permanently.

Special government employees aren't subject to the ethics and conflict-of-interest rules that government employees typically encounter. Musk's companies, particularly Tesla and SpaceX, have benefited significantly from government contracts.

Federal law says special government employees cannot serve for more than 130 days in a 365-day period, but it's not clear what would happen if Musk worked longer than that.

The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) and the Department of Commerce suggest in online guidance that there are few consequences, with the FLRA saying that an employee's special government employee status is based on the agency's "good faith estimate" of how long the employee will work and Commerce ethics guidance saying that whoever appoints a special government employee who works more than 130 days "should reevaluate" the employee's status at the start of the next year.

Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency" is also part of the federal government — President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office renaming the United States Digital Service as the United States DOGE Service.

In recent days, Musk and his DOGE team have taken aim at the US Agency for International Development, with Musk calling for the agency to be shuttered.

On Monday, USAID employees were told that the building would be closed and staffers would be required to work from home, spurring outcry from Democratic lawmakers.

• It's starting to become clear how Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene plans to use the DOGE subcommittee.
• She's asking the CEOs of PBS and NPR to testify in a hearing in March.
• Greene says she wants the organizations to justify why they receive public funds.

The House DOGE subcommittee has found its first targets: NPR and PBS.

In letters sent to both media organizations on Monday, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the chairwoman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, requested that their CEOs testify in a hearing on March 3 or 24.

In the letters, the Georgia congresswoman accused both NPR and PBS of producing "systemically biased" content, pointing to NPR's handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story and PBS's reporting on a gesture that Elon Musk made at an Inauguration Day event.

"As an organization that receives federal funds through its member stations, PBS should provide reporting that serves the entire public, not just a narrow slice of like-minded individuals and ideological interest groups," Greene wrote.

In a statement on Monday, NPR said that the organization would "welcome the opportunity to discuss the critical role of public media in delivering impartial, fact-based news and reporting to the American public."

A spokesperson for PBS also said they "appreciate the opportunity to present to the committee how now, more than ever, the service PBS provides matters for our nation."

NPR says it receives less than 1% of its annual budget from the federal government on average. PBS, meanwhile, says it gets 15% of its revenue from the government.

Separately, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, launched an investigation into NPR and PBS over sponsorships.

The DOGE subcommittee, while intended to pursue similar goals to Musk's DOGE team in the executive branch, is a separate entity — and it's likely to be a forum for televised clashes between Democrats and Republicans over the federal government.

Later on Monday, Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico — Greene's Democratic counterpart on the subcommittee — sharply criticized the letter in a statement to BI.

"While funding for public media has long been a target of GOP leaders, we have never seen such blatant attacks on the media and institutions as we've seen the last two weeks, including this effort to intimidate and undermine public media as with this DOGE hearing called by our colleagues," Stansbury said.