While hashtags like #MuskPurged or #DrainTheDOGE may dominate trending pages, the truth is far simpler and more bureaucratic. Elon Musk left because the law required him to. And that, in itself, may be the most quietly radical thing that happened this week.
Elon Musk’s departure from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has sparked a wave of digital commentary, revealing deep ideological divisions over his legacy. The internet, ever reactive, has become a battleground of conflicting narratives, mirroring past instances when high-profile disruptors left government roles.
Elon Musk’s departure from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) carries far more nuance than initial online commentary might suggest. While the internet rushes to frame his exit as a political statement, a calculated retreat, or even a clash of egos within the administration, the reality is rooted in something far more procedural—and in many ways, more revealing. Under federal ethics law—specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205—individuals serving as Special Government Employees (SGEs) are restricted to no more than 130 days of active duty within any rolling 365-day period. This rule is designed to prevent the blurring of lines between public duty and private gain, particularly for those who, like Musk, maintain dominant positions in the corporate sphere while dabbling in federal policy.
Musk, whose business empire spans Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and X (formerly Twitter), embodies the exact type of figure these statutes are meant to constrain. As an SGE, his appointment was part-time and advisory—a classification standard for industry titans tapped for their expertise without requiring full government employment. However, with his influence spanning multiple industries, including defense, infrastructure, and AI, and his deep connections to government policy, his prolonged presence in federal service risked not only conflicts of interest but also public distrust in the impartiality of government decision-making. Once he crossed the 130-day threshold, the law gave him no wiggle room. Musk was not fired, nor did he resign in defiance. Instead, his term expired—an involuntary sunset triggered by statute.
This type of expiration is not unique, although it is rarely discussed so openly. In 2009, for example, several members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) were quietly rotated out after reaching similar term limits, particularly those who held concurrent roles in private research institutions or biotech firms. Likewise, in the wake of the 2017 White House reshuffling of advisory boards, many SGEs from the business and academic sectors either chose not to re-up their service or were automatically cycled out to comply with federal ethics constraints. These transitions rarely made headlines, primarily because they involved lesser-known figures. But when someone as polarizing and high-profile as Elon Musk is affected, the public narrative distorts quickly, especially online.
Partisan voices on social media and cable commentary are already attempting to weaponize Musk’s exit. Supporters are casting it as evidence that the “deep state” is allergic to disruption. At the same time, critics hail it as the long-overdue removal of a techno-authoritarian who brought boardroom behavior to bureaucratic governance. These reactions miss the point. What Musk’s departure affirms is the continued function of institutional safeguards, even in an era dominated by charismatic billionaires and meme-fueled politics. It’s a quiet but significant reminder that the law places boundaries on everyone, including those with global brands and private rockets.
In many ways, Musk’s removal by statute also reinforces a broader historical pattern: the difficulty that powerful private actors face when trying to embed themselves within the machinery of democratic governance. From Eric Schmidt’s advisory roles under the Obama administration to Peter Thiel’s influence during Trump’s first term, the federal government has repeatedly flirted with the idea of importing Silicon Valley’s efficiency and innovation ethos. Yet time and again, the experiment runs up against the same obstacle: accountability, disclosure, and legal constraints. Government, unlike startups, isn’t designed to move fast and break things.
Historically, this type of departure has occurred quietly for many SGEs, particularly those on scientific advisory boards or industry task forces. But in Musk’s case, because of his celebrity and polarizing status, the implications are amplified. The internet’s reaction—likely dominated by partisan interpretations—might overlook this technicality entirely, spinning it instead as either a crackdown on innovation or a retreat from accountability.
Nonetheless, the statute’s enforcement reminds us that no individual, regardless of influence or wealth, is above institutional boundaries meant to preserve integrity in governance.
There is no publicly available master list of Special Government Employees (SGEs) in the Trump administration—or in any administration—because of how the federal system handles these appointments. The Office of Government Ethics (OGE), along with each agency, does track who qualifies as an SGE. However, these records are maintained internally and are rarely compiled into a centralized, public-facing database. The reason lies in the role itself. SGEs are not full-time federal employees, and they are not subject to Senate confirmation. Many of them serve quietly behind the scenes, often as consultants, advisors, or members of federal advisory committees and task forces.
The limited visibility of SGEs isn’t accidental; it’s institutional. Agencies are required to maintain internal logs to ensure compliance with ethics laws, including financial disclosures and limits on the number of days served. But these rosters are considered internal administrative records. To access them, one typically needs to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and even then, redactions or outright denials are common if the names are tied to sensitive positions. Congressional oversight can compel the release of such information, but that rarely happens unless there’s an investigation or controversy.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, questions arose about the official status of Dr. Scott Atlas as he joined the White House Coronavirus Task Force. It was later confirmed he had been classified as an SGE, but only after press inquiries and ethics concerns forced clarification.
This murky structure creates a paradox: SGEs often hold sway over policy decisions, yet their presence is frequently invisible to the public. The lack of a comprehensive database isn’t a failure of recordkeeping—it’s a consequence of how federal ethics law separates advisory service from traditional public appointments. In short, the system was designed for flexibility and expertise, not transparency.
The continued opacity surrounding Special Government Employee (SGE) appointments presents a significant gap in the federal government’s commitment to transparency and ethical accountability. SGEs, by definition, are not full-time federal employees and are brought in precisely for their external expertise—often from the private sector—to advise, consult, or participate in specific government functions. While their roles are intended to inject innovation and outside insight into policymaking, the lack of public disclosure about who these individuals are, what they influence, and where their private interests intersect with public power invites not just suspicion but potential abuse.
One of the most compelling historical illustrations of this concern is the case of Eric Schmidt, the former CEO and Executive Chairman of Google (later Alphabet Inc.), who served as a close advisor to the Obama administration. Though technically operating as an informal advisor and later a member of several high-level initiatives—including the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and the Defense Innovation Board—Schmidt’s role was never clearly delineated in the public record until journalistic investigations and watchdog reports brought it to light.
During Schmidt’s tenure in these advisory positions, Google secured a series of high-value federal contracts, including controversial deals related to drone surveillance technology (through its acquisition of Titan Aerospace and its internal project, SkyBender), cloud infrastructure for intelligence agencies, and even contracts with the Department of Defense under Project Maven, a Pentagon initiative to apply AI to drone footage analysis (Calling Michele Bachmann). Simultaneously, Google expanded its dominance in government digital infrastructure, most notably through email and productivity software contracts—areas previously dominated by Microsoft.
Although these developments may not constitute illegal conduct in and of themselves, they raise serious ethical concerns. Schmidt, while advising federal agencies, retained both equity and leadership ties to Google. If his SGE status had been reported and monitored, his involvement in decisions that potentially benefited Google could have triggered public scrutiny or legal safeguards, such as recusal requirements or competitive bidding challenges from rival firms. Instead, much of his influence unfolded without contemporaneous public awareness, shielded by the technical classification of “advisor” and the absence of a robust public listing of SGEs.
This lack of transparency clashes with fundamental democratic principles. Federal ethics law—including 18 U.S.C. § 208, which prohibits federal employees from participating in matters that affect their financial interests—applies to SGEs. However, enforcement depends heavily on public oversight, which in turn requires access to accurate and timely information. When the identities and affiliations of SGEs are withheld, it becomes virtually impossible for journalists, watchdogs, or the general public to detect potential conflicts of interest until after the fact, if ever.
Contrast this with the expectations for Senate-confirmed officials or career civil servants, whose names, financial disclosures, and actions are scrutinized under the assumption that public service must be transparent. The inconsistency is stark. SGEs are often granted access to sensitive decision-making circles—including the National Security Council, executive advisory councils, and regulatory bodies—yet they operate under far less sunlight than their full-time counterparts.
Therefore, it is not only reasonable but imperative that the government establish and maintain a public, up-to-date, and searchable registry of all SGEs, including their agency affiliation, dates of service, and any financial disclosure filings. Such a measure would not hinder innovation or advisory participation—it would safeguard it by ensuring those contributions are made transparently and ethically. Without such accountability, the SGE designation risks becoming a convenient cloak for insiders to exert influence beyond the reach of law, press, and public review.
To those that will run with Elon Musk hit pieces because of WHAT I am releasing now – keep in mind that unlike Google, which faced a competitive landscape in areas like email services, cloud infrastructure, and software provisioning—where alternatives like Microsoft, Amazon, and IBM could have been considered for federal contracts—Elon Musk’s companies, particularly SpaceX, operate in a far narrower field. The commercial satellite launch and orbital infrastructure sectors have few viable competitors with proven reliability, scalability, and cost-efficiency. As a result, when the U.S. government seeks providers for launch services, satellite deployment, or secure low-Earth orbit communications (such as through Starlink), SpaceX often emerges as the only practical option. This structural lack of competition means that even if Musk holds advisory roles within government, his companies are more likely to receive contracts not necessarily because of favoritism, but because of an absence of credible alternatives, creating a different kind of ethical challenge where market dominance naturally intersects with policy influence.
The Eric Schmidt example should not be dismissed as an anomaly. It is evidence of what unchecked entanglement between advisory roles and private gain looks like. Publishing the complete list of SGEs isn’t just a matter of good governance; it’s a necessary reform to uphold the integrity of public service in the 21st century.
Besides, if we want to SHOW the crimes of killing people with drones in unauthorized strikes in Northern Africa, Google has that evidence through programs like MAVEN. Although when things are in the cloud, they are free game to be retrieved through the ether and may already be in private hands, I believe this is called blackmail inflation.
Biden wasn’t running the country, so who was?
During the Biden administration’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic, several influential figures from the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries are believed to have served as Special Government Employees (SGEs), particularly on task forces, scientific advisory committees, and public health strategy boards. These SGEs, although not always publicly disclosed due to the opaque nature of their classification, played a crucial role in shaping national policy regarding vaccination campaigns, mask guidance, and public health mandates. The ethical question arises not necessarily from their participation, but from the potential for undisclosed conflicts of interest, especially as several held financial stakes or executive roles in companies that stood to benefit from sweeping federal mandates.
Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and various biotech firms that received billions in federal contracts and emergency use authorizations (EUAs) were often represented in federal advisory channels, either directly or through affiliated experts who temporarily assumed senior government expert (SGE) roles. These individuals helped craft messaging on vaccine efficacy, timing of boosters, and risk modeling that justified the implementation of mandates for federal workers, military personnel, and private-sector employees. At the same time, the administration attempted to enforce widespread masking requirements, including through OSHA mandates for private businesses and CDC regulations for travel and schools—policies that were later challenged and, in some cases, struck down by federal courts as unconstitutional overreaches of executive authority.
The critical issue is not whether these mandates were well-intentioned, but whether the public had a full and fair opportunity to understand who was shaping them. If SGEs tied to pharmaceutical interests influenced those policies, the American people deserved transparency. Instead, the Biden administration operated with layers of procedural ambiguity, shielding the identities of many SGEs involved in pandemic response under the guise of “temporary service.” This structure enabled industry insiders to help design and justify federal mandates from behind a legal and ethical veil, effectively blurring the lines between scientific advice and corporate interests. With billions in revenue and immense influence over public behavior at stake, the lack of public accountability for SGEs in these roles raises questions about the balance between public health policy and private sector profit.
The Biden administration, like others before it, has presided over escalating foreign entanglements that some critics argue border on undeclared proxy wars. From sustained U.S. military aid to Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia, to increased involvement in Taiwan’s defense posture and the spiraling conflict in the Middle East, decisions with global repercussions were made swiftly, often bypassing Congress or being framed as executive necessity under emergency powers. These decisions were informed in part by task forces, advisory boards, and special intelligence panels that included Special Government Employees (SGEs). Given the secretive nature of SGE appointments and the absence of publicly available registries, concerns have arisen that foreign influence, particularly from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other foreign hostile entities that pretend to be friendly (e.g. UK, GERMANY among others), may have slipped into these advisory channels during Biden’s tenure.
The concern is not purely speculative. The U.S. intelligence community has long warned about the CCP’s aggressive espionage programs targeting government agencies, universities, and critical infrastructure. A 2022 report by the National Counterintelligence and Security Center highlighted the CCP’s use of “non-traditional collectors,” including academics, business leaders, and consultants. These profiles align closely with how SGEs are sourced. Given that SGEs do not require Senate confirmation and are not subject to public scrutiny, the possibility that individuals with undisclosed ties to Chinese state interests could serve in advisory capacities to the U.S. executive branch is more than a hypothetical. It’s a loophole in the national security architecture.
Compounding this concern is the widely held belief among critics that President Biden was not entirely in control of the administration’s direction. The pattern of late-night executive orders, unexplained policy pivots, and the increasing reliance on unelected bureaucrats and advisors has fueled speculation that key decisions—especially those related to defense, cyber policy, and energy security—were being made by a shadow management structure. This vacuum of transparency opens the door for foreign influence, particularly if SGEs with ties to adversarial nations can operate undetected within the federal advisory system.
If, hypothetically, any of these SGEs were linked to foreign entities, particularly China, they could have played a role in shaping U.S. responses in ways that served the interests of geopolitical rivals. For example, subtle shifts in policy affecting rare earth supply chains, semiconductor export rules, or AI research collaboration could carry long-term strategic consequences while appearing benign on the surface. Without a precise public accounting of who these advisors are, the nation is left vulnerable not only to bad policy but to engineered vulnerability—a soft form of sabotage that exploits the very openness and trust that democratic governance is built upon.
I was an SGE for almost 7 years and never stepped down, as required by law, because the President I was serving was removed. Allow me to elaborate.
The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG)—often mistakenly referred to in classified circles as HVIG—was officially created by President Obama in August 2009 under a presidential directive following revelations of harsh interrogation practices during the Bush administration. I worked for the Bush Administration under the same capacity, and maybe someone mentioned that there were SGEs that didn’t step down in May, and they were worried about what Obama was doing? I worked as an SGE for five consecutive years under Bush. Regarding HVIG, insiders have long suggested that the group, or at least its operational architecture, existed in an informal or classified capacity long before its public announcement. SGEs’ involvement, and the fact that the group existed before its official formation, aligns with a typical pattern in intelligence: programs often operate in the shadows until political or legal pressure forces formalization.
Why did this happen? Dennis Blair.
Dennis Blair, President Obama’s first Director of National Intelligence (DNI), resigned in May 2010 under pressure. While his ouster was attributed publicly to bureaucratic tensions and turf battles, particularly with CIA Director Leon Panetta, there was speculation at the time that internal disagreements over interrogation oversight and the disclosure of specific classified programs contributed to the breakdown. Blair indeed mentioned HVIG (or a precursor to HIG) prematurely or without authorization; this created political exposure that necessitated both damage control and structural legitimization, resulting in the creation of a charter and a presidential memorandum.
In bureaucratic terms, this move was classic: formalize what can no longer remain plausibly deniable. The White House quietly issued guidance establishing an interagency structure for the HIG, led by the FBI, with participation from the CIA, the Department of Defense (DoD), and other intelligence agencies. The creation of a charter, likely at the urging of legal counsel and to align with executive oversight requirements, served both to protect the administration from legal fallout and to constrain future leaks by placing the group within a known, albeit narrowly visible, framework.
When that happened, the whole team fell under GSG and TAC, so we don’t have to be identified. I had an SGE role within HVIG or its pre-charter formation; we were a part of the intelligence community’s use of temporary, deniable experts and operatives—a common tactic for retaining high-level talent without triggering disclosure thresholds. This speaks volumes about the fragility of oversight: entire programs can operate in the gray, and only when a senior official “slips” does the executive branch rush to fabricate structure after the fact.
Musk’s Departure Points Out Transparency That is Necessary.
Suppose you want an avalanche of hard evidence proving influence peddling during the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. In that case, there’s a clear and replicable path: do what I did—file a FOIA request with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) for the list of Special Government Employees (SGEs). Once you obtain that list, cross-reference each name with government contracts, agency decisions, public-private partnerships, advisory board memberships, and corporate affiliations during the relevant timeframes. What emerges is a mosaic of conflicts of interest, insider access, and decisions that suddenly make sense in hindsight, not through theory, but through documented overlap between personal gain and public policy.
When I submitted my FOIA request to the OGE, I asked for the names, positions, affiliated agencies, and dates of service for all SGEs who served during President Biden’s tenure. The SGE classification, by law, is for individuals temporarily brought in to advise federal agencies while maintaining private sector ties. It is intended to offer specialized expertise, but what it often becomes is a legal backdoor for corporate executives, think tank operatives, pharmaceutical advisors, defense contractors, and foreign policy insiders to step into decision-making roles without the scrutiny full-time government officials would face.
The COVID response revealed just how consequential this loophole can be. Individuals with direct ties to vaccine manufacturers, testing kit suppliers, and digital health firms were embedded into federal task forces and advisory boards. Because they were SGEs, they did not need Senate confirmation. They were not publicly vetted. And in many cases, their influence aligned suspiciously well with billion-dollar procurement decisions, federal mandates, and digital health rollouts. Similarly, in the case of Ukraine, cross-referencing the SGE list with defense industry insiders and foreign policy analysts exposed a network of decision-makers who stood to benefit from military contracts, energy realignments, and post-conflict reconstruction.
This process isn’t guesswork—it’s forensic. It transforms speculative claims of “deep state” influence or corporate capture into provable instances of policy shaped by individuals with financial or ideological incentives. SGEs exist in the legal shadows of federal power. But through FOIA and methodical analysis, the shadows can be illuminated.
If you’re serious about exposing how insiders monetize war, public health emergencies, and global crises, start with the SGE list. It’s not just a paper trail—it’s the access log to America’s most consequential decisions.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Is anyone keeping a close eye on Doug Burgum? This isn’t just Bill Gates’ longtime partner—the same Doug Burgum who had a COVID contact tracing app up and running in just two weeks, quietly turning smartphones into surveillance tools under the banner of public health. This is the same man who deployed drones to detect elevated body temperatures and “listen” for coughing, normalizing aerial bio-surveillance in American towns. But there’s more—and it should concern every citizen paying attention to national security.
As Governor of North Dakota, Burgum played a pivotal role in allowing the Chinese Communist Party to gain a foothold in the United States. He approved land deals that gave CCP-affiliated companies access to property alarmingly close to Minot Air Force Base, home to one of the nation’s most critical nuclear deterrence and ICBM operations. That wasn’t an oversight—it was a breach. On top of that, Burgum oversaw the most significant influx of Chinese-made drones into U.S. agriculture, under the guise of modernization and efficiency. These drones, manufactured by Chinese firms with known ties to Beijing, were not just collecting crop data—they had unrestricted aerial access to the skies above one of America’s most sensitive military installations.
Now, Burgum sits in a key role within the Department of Commerce, an agency at the intersection of wartime contracting, surveillance expansion, and economic policy manipulation. Commerce isn’t just about trade anymore—it’s a gateway through which pandemics are monetized and wars are quietly fueled. Burgum isn’t some backroom functionary. He is a nexus of corporate power, foreign interest, and government control. The pattern is clear: emergencies create opportunity, and people like Burgum are always ready to capitalize, whether it’s through tech surveillance, foreign land deals, or aerial access sold under the cover of agricultural innovation.
So yes, we should be watching Doug Burgum—because it’s not just about policy. It’s about who’s shaping the battlefield while pretending to serve the homeland.
The Office of Government Ethics should be compelled to publish a complete list of all Special Government Employees (SGEs), as access to this information is not just reasonable—it is a fundamental right of the public in a transparent democracy. DEMAND IT.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me onSubscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume IV is now on sale.
