Elon Musk’s growing influence over federal agencies has raised alarms among Democrats, who view his actions as not only a direct breach of U.S. constitutional principles but also as an illegal power grab. Musk, the billionaire behind companies like Tesla and SpaceX, has reportedly gained access to sensitive government data from agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Treasury Department, and now, the Education Department. According to critics, his interference is a direct violation of the constitutional separation of powers, which grants Congress—not an unelected billionaire—the authority to direct the workings of federal agencies and influence government spending.
While Democrats have sounded the alarm over Musk’s increasing control, some Senate Republicans have taken a less critical stance, brushing off concerns that Musk is undermining Congress. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who’s seen as vulnerable in the upcoming 2026 elections, acknowledged that Musk might be overstepping into areas where Congress holds authority but downplayed the significance of the billionaire’s stated intentions. Tillis described Musk’s disruptive actions as simply an exercise in thought-provoking ideas, which may never fully materialize due to practical limits. “I don’t mind the disruptive thought process that we’re going through now,” Tillis said, “and then we’ll have to figure out to what extent this is something that can be done by the administration. If so, great. Otherwise, we have to set about the work to authorize whatever changes we agree are necessary.”
Tillis further elaborated, drawing on his experience in management consulting, explaining that big ideas are often floated without ever being executed due to the real-world constraints that companies face. He drew a parallel between Musk’s approach and the way companies often brainstorm transformative strategies that rarely come to fruition. “We always threw out big ideas to try and stimulate people’s thinking,” Tillis reflected, “but we seldom ever executed them like our strategist would want, because there are practical limits for what you can do. The same applies here.”
Despite such comments, many Senate Republicans seem comfortable with Musk’s increasingly visible role in shaping federal policy. For them, his interventions are a welcome attempt to streamline government inefficiencies. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, downplayed concerns about Musk’s influence, suggesting that presidents have historically relied on special advisors or “czars” to improve government efficiency. “I don’t think he’s cutting into congressional power,” Crapo said. "Many past presidents have gotten assistance or created czars or others to work on improving government efficiency, and that’s what he’s doing." Similarly, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) expressed support for Musk’s actions, especially his efforts to identify and reduce waste within the government. “I’m happy anybody’s taking a look at all the waste, fraud, and abuse throughout government,” Johnson added. “I’m very supportive of their efforts.”
Republican senators, including some in the Senate, have treated Musk’s increasingly aggressive actions—like removing security officers from USAID’s headquarters and allegedly forcing out employees—merely as routine consulting. These actions, they argue, are simply an outsider looking into government operations, in much the same way a consulting firm would analyze inefficiencies and recommend improvements. Many Republicans have brushed off the more aggressive tactics Musk’s team has employed, such as attempting to force federal workers into quitting with questionable buyout offers, by framing them as no more than an effort to evaluate and reform broken systems that Congress has struggled to address.
While Republican lawmakers seem content to let Musk operate with little oversight, the real power to curb his influence may lie in the judiciary. Musk’s actions, including breaches of federal systems like the Treasury’s payment system, have prompted immediate legal challenges, and it’s here that resistance is mounting. However, legal victories may be fleeting, especially with the rise of more conservative-leaning appellate courts, and the cases could ultimately find their way to the Supreme Court, where the outcomes are far from predictable.
In contrast, Democratic lawmakers, having been largely sidelined from executive power, are doing everything they can to challenge Musk’s growing reach. Democratic leaders in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), have introduced a bill dubbed the "Stop the Steal Act." While it’s unlikely to pass through the Republican-controlled Congress, the bill is part of a larger strategy by Democrats to exert influence and increase public awareness. The bill’s primary goal is to prevent Musk’s access to the Treasury’s payment system, and its introduction is meant to send a message: that Democrats will push back against any undue influence over federal agencies.
Schumer outlined the broader strategy that Democrats are adopting: maximize public outcry, pursue legal action, and use oversight mechanisms to hold Musk and the Trump administration accountable. Schumer also emphasized the importance of leveraging upcoming legislative deadlines to pressure Republicans into taking action. “On the appointments, they don’t need Democrats, but on legislation, particularly the funding resolution, they do need us,” Schumer said. “And we will insist that there be certain changes that undo these bad things.”
One of the key moments Democrats are eyeing for leverage is the expiration of the current government funding bill in mid-March. Historically, Republicans have often depended on Democratic votes to pass crucial spending bills, given that many members of the GOP have opposed government spending. Additionally, Congress will soon face the need to raise or suspend the debt ceiling, another legislative challenge where Democrats are likely to play a pivotal role in negotiations.
In response to Musk’s growing control, some individual Democrats have pledged to take action on their own. For example, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) has promised to delay the confirmation of Trump’s State Department nominees until action is taken against Musk’s interference with USAID. “I think they’re quietly concerned, but at some point they’re gonna have to assert themselves,” Schatz remarked. “A lot of people spent a lot of money and a lot of time becoming United States senators, and I, for one, wouldn’t want to forfeit all the power that I just earned by virtue of my election certificate.”
While Democrats are working to assert their authority, the Trump administration’s stance on Musk’s power grab is still evolving. For now, President Donald Trump has publicly expressed his support for Musk, calling him a “smart guy” and acknowledging his substantial role in the administration. Trump has also warned that he would prevent Musk from taking any actions that conflict with his own agenda. However, the relationship between Trump and Musk may not remain harmonious forever. Many political observers in Washington believe that a fracture could occur, especially given Trump’s tendency to resist being overshadowed by others. Should such a split occur, Republican opposition to Musk’s growing influence could emerge.
Despite the Republicans’ comfortable stance on Musk’s actions, some Democrats are increasingly vocal about the growing concentration of power in Musk’s hands. “No one voted for Elon Musk, and now he has power, evidently, that neither Congress nor the President has,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) remarked in disbelief. “And it’s all happening in plain view.” The reality of Musk’s unprecedented access to the levers of government has left many questioning the integrity of a system where an unelected individual wields so much influence.
This growing sense of unease could spark a broader debate about the role of private individuals in shaping public policy, especially in a time when the lines between private business interests and government power are increasingly blurred. As the drama continues to unfold, it seems clear that Musk’s interventions will remain a hot-button issue in Washington, with both sides of the aisle preparing for a battle over who gets to define the future of the federal government.
Login