What position does Elon Musk hold in the federal government? Is his position legal?
AI-assisted summary
Elon Musk holds the position of head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a newly formed entity aimed at reducing federal spending.
Musk's role is designated as a "special government employee," permitting temporary federal employment with or without compensation.
Memphis' most prominent business owner recently gained a position in the White House, but what exactly is his position?
With Elon Musk's new department comes a number of questions about his position, the program itself and whether Musk is allowed to work in federal government at all. Recently, Musk was made a "special government employee." This position, while not new, is not used often by presidents.
Along with Musk's position, his team has been making a stir from the federal programs they have already investigated.
Here's what to know about Musk's new position.
What position does Elon Musk hold in government?
Musk leads the Department of Government Efficiency whose goal is to find and remove excess or wasteful spending in federal programs. He promised his program would cut trillions from the federal budget.
Musk was made a "special government employee" which allows him to work for the federal government for a limit period of time with or without pay.
According to the United States Department of the Interior, a special government employee is "an officer or employee in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government who is appointed to perform important, but limited, services to the Government, with or without compensation, for a period not to exceed 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days."
While Musk is the head of the department, his team consists of several engineers, aged 19 to 25, with little-to-no government experience, Wired reported.
One member resigned from his DOGE position once he was linked to a social media account which shared racist content, Fortune reported.
What has DOGE done so far?
Recently, Musk's department went after the United States Agency for International Development.
Musk's team is currently working at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services this week examining payment and contracting systems of the federal health agency.
Additionally, a top official for the United States Department of Education confirmed the team working for DOGE has been reviewing the agency's operations.
When did Elon Musk become a citizen?
Musk was born in Pretoria, South Africa, in 1971. He was born to a South African father and Canadian mother, through whom he has Canadian citizenship.
He came to the United States when he was in college and has mostly remained here since. A 2023 biography noted that Musk gained his United States citizenship in 2002 after living here for years.
Can Elon Musk run for president?
According to the Constitution, a person must be at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen and have been a resident in the United States for 14 years in order to run for president.
As Musk is not a natural born citizen, it should mean he cannot run for president. Senator John McCain was approved, with scrutiny, to run for president despite being born on U.S. territory in Panama and being granted citizenship when he was 11 months old. McCain, however, was allowed to run on the basis of both his parents were natural born U.S. citizens.
Can Elon Musk work for the government?
To work for the federal government, it is generally required that you must be a United States citizen or natural, although there are exceptions says the United States Office of Personnel Management.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Canada to hit NATO spending target this year as it shifts defense focus toward EU
Canada will reach NATO's defense spending target of 2% of GDP this year, five years ahead of schedule, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced on June 9. Speaking at the University of Toronto, Carney said the move is part of a strategic pivot away from reliance on the U.S. and toward deeper cooperation with the European Union, citing growing security threats from Russia, China, and other adversaries. Carney said Canada's current military capabilities are inadequate, noting that only one of four submarines is operational and much of the maritime and land fleet is outdated. To reverse this trend, his government is launching a $6.8 (9.3 billion Canadian dollars) boost to the defense budget for 2025-26. The investment will be tabled in Parliament through supplementary estimates and directed toward rebuilding the Canadian Armed Forces, upgrading equipment, and expanding domestic production capabilities. The new defense posture includes reassessing major procurement decisions, such as the planned purchase of U.S.-made F-35 jets, and prioritizing partnerships with European firms for equipment acquisitions. Carney emphasized that three-quarters of Canada's defense capital spending has gone to the U.S., a pattern he said must end. "We're doing this for us," Carney was quoted as saying. "Relatedly we're doing it as a strong NATO partner, we're a firm believer in NATO, and we're standing shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies, we'll continue to do so. ." Carney's announcement comes just ahead of the NATO leaders' summit in late June, where member states are expected to commit to higher defense spending thresholds of up to 5%. The prime minister said Canada would support a new NATO defense industrial pledge and participate in the EU's ReArm Europe initiative. He added that future cooperation with the EU will be a major theme of the upcoming Canada-EU summit. Read also: Ukraine war latest: Ukraine shoots down nearly 500 drones, missiles in Russian record strike, Air Force says We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
America Has Theories on Whether Trump-Elon Musk Feud Is All Fake
After President Donald Trump's beef with Tesla CEO Elon Musk practically broke the internet, Americans are wondering if all the drama was meant to deflect from one crucial piece of legislation: Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act. Others, however, don't think the president is smart enough to pull it off. Let's get into it. After passing in the House by the skin of it's teeth, the GOP spending bill is headed to the Senate, drawing mixed reviews from Democrats and Republicans alike. With major cuts to Medicaid– which Trump promised he wouldn't do– questionable AI regulations, permanent taxes cut to the wealthy, adding trillions to the national debt and much more, Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act is anything but beautiful, and more folks should be paying attention. But alas, they're not… And after last week's blow up between him and Musk, many online have theories that the Trump and Musk battle got people watching the wrong fight. 'This Trump-Musk fight seems like a distraction,' @d_originalone noted on June 5. Another user pointed out the suspicious timing of the feud coinciding with the bill. 'Elon Musk sitting on Epstein information and only releasing it because him and trump aren't friends makes him just as disgusting as Trump,' @namenonew started. 'It's all a distraction & greed tactic folks.' Even CNN host Audie Cornish noted 'there's a billion-dollar bill at stake—but all eyes are on the fight between two billionaires.' She continued, 'Medicaid, SNAP, and foreign policy are all in the balance, yet headlines focus on Musk and Trump.' 'Who gives a rat's ass bout a fake feud between 2 Nazis,' @kenyadad12 boldly tweeted before adding the real concern should be 'this bill GOP pushing through that will allow trump to ignore contempt orders from the courts.' Although many are convinced Trump's alleged scheme is to divert Americans from the dangers of the tax bill with the drama of the century, there's no way to exactly know if that's the president's real plan. But, you can't put anything past the man, who is known for his antics and divisive nature. On TikTok, @omekongo listed Trump's travel ban to 12 different countries, a recent abortion directive endangering pregnant people nation-wide and most importantly, that 'big, ugly tax bill' as reasons for Trump's alleged smoke and mirrors trick on America. Other folks online don't want to give Trump and Musk any credit for allegedly scheming to deter from the real issues plaguing the country. 'There's no master plan, no distraction; they're just impulsive fascist idiots,' @LivForJReeves10 said on X. @trustno1evah on TikTok said no matter how hard Trump might try to pull the wool over Americans' eyes, they're not doing a good job at it. 'This Trump and Musk fallout is all a staged LIE,' she said. The bill itself is over 1,000 pages long, tackling any and everything under the sun while still checking off key points in the MAGA rulebook, 'Project 2025.' With legislation this long and tedious, it's not shocking Americans won't be able to digest the full impact the bill will have on their lives. In fact, even House Republicans like Ga. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene and Neb. Rep. Mike Flood admitted to skimming over key points in the vital tax legislation. If the very people elected to read and review proposed legislation have confessed to being unaware of the very small, fine print, then Americans should probably be paying even closer attention to what's at stake.
Newsweek
34 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Supreme Court 'Fans the Flames'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a warning about the nation's highest court in her latest dissent over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)'s access to Social Security systems. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office email for comment. Why It Matters Jackson, the newest justice on the bench, warned that conservative justices are rushing to assist President Donald Trump's administration in the ruling handed down last week. Her warning comes as public trust in the Supreme Court remains low—the Pew Research Center found in August 2024 that a majority of American—51 percent—view the court unfavorably, while only 47 percent view the court favorably. Until 2022, Americans viewed the court favorably for decades. What to Know The court allowed DOGE, the task force aimed at cutting federal spending, to gain access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records last Friday. The relief came after U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander blocked the task force from gaining access to the systems over concerns about privacy implications. The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Jackson raising concerns about the court's ruling. When deciding questions like whether to grant or block an order issued by a lower court, the court assesses several factors including whether the applicant would face irreparable harm by allowing the stay to continue. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. MANDEL NGAN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the government did not substantiate its stay request "by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm" if the court allowed the block to stay in place awaiting a final verdict. Jackson said the only "urgency" underlying the application is the "mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." "That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to justify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government seeks," Jackson wrote. "But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." Jackson is "clearly expressing her frustration with the use of the shadow docket to make public policy, something the Court's conservatives have been increasingly willing to do," Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek. "Public trust in the Court has fallen significantly in recent years, and Justice Jackson is likely linking the decline in public support for the Court to the growth in the use of the shadow docket," Collins said. Jackson issued a similar warning in the case Noem v. Doe in May. The case dealt with whether the administration could end a program giving residency to several countries facing domestic turmoil. She wrote the court "botched" its assessment and required "next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm." What People Are Saying Collins told Newsweek: "I think Justice Jackson's interpretation that the Court is rushing to side with the Trump Administration is a reasonable read of things. However, this probably has more to do with ideological alignment with the goals of the Trump Administration than with a particular affinity for President Trump. For instance, the Court's conservatives also sided with the Trump Administration in a case that would have required DOGE to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests." SSA Commissioner Bisignano to Newsweek via X last Friday: "The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wrote on X on Friday: "MAJOR UPDATE: The Supreme Court just handed DOGE the keys to all the sensitive personal information Social Security has on file — your income, benefits, health records, and more. Why do Donald Trump and his cronies need access to millions of Americans' private data? It's absurd." What Happens Next Several pieces of Trump's agenda are facing legal battles, and the Supreme Court will continue playing a major role in determining whether his policies are constitutional or not moving forward. This has major implications for economic, immigration and social policy moving forward.
