What happened

At least two Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) operatives assigned to the Social Security Administration accessed and shared sensitive data on unsecured servers, in violation of agency rules, a court order and possibly some laws, the Justice Department said in “corrections” to previous testimony made public Tuesday. The disclosure was a “notable reversal by Social Security officials, who had previously claimed there was no evidence that DOGE had potentially compromised personal data,” The Washington Post said.

Who said what

Two unidentified DOGE workers were secretly in contact with an unidentified advocacy group seeking to “overturn election results in certain states,” DOJ official Elizabeth Shapiro said in the filing, and one of them signed an agreement with the group and may have aided it “by accessing SSA data to match to the voter rolls.” The agency also “acknowledged for the first time that DOGE members had shared data with each other using an unsanctioned third-party service,” Cloudflare, the Post said. Social Security has been unable to access or “determine exactly what data were shared to Cloudflare,” Shapiro said.

The corrections affirm many of the allegations made by former SSA chief data officer Charles Borges in whistleblower testimony to Congress in August. “We have been warning about privacy violations at Social Security and calling out Elon Musk’s ‘DOGE’ for months,” Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement. They called for the DOGE employees to be prosecuted.

What next?

Federal lawyers “referred the two DOGE employees to the Office of Special Counsel for a potential violation of the Hatch Act,” The New York Times said. Outside privacy law experts said the operatives also appeared to have violated much more serious laws, like the Privacy Act.

What happened

Elon Musk said Wednesday night that his time as a "special government employee" in the Trump administration had come "to an end." His exit, confirmed by the White House, followed a federal judge's ruling on Tuesday that 14 states could pursue their claim that Musk's appointment and his DOGE operation's data grabs were illegal. A group of Tesla shareholders also wrote to the company's board Wednesday demanding his "full-time attention on Tesla" or replacement as CEO.

Who said what

Musk had recently "pivoted to damage control," seeking to "claw back the credibility he torched during his toxic tenure in Washington," Axios said. But "that won't be easy: SpaceX and Tesla both saw their brand reputations crater over the past year."

Musk "struggled" in Washington and "accomplished far less than he hoped," The Associated Press said. He "dramatically reduced his target for cutting spending — from $2 trillion to $1 trillion to $150 billion" — and federal spending actually increased. The "cuts he wanted to enact were far more difficult than he expected and his lack of interest in learning more about the bureaucracy he considered toxic impeded his efforts," The New York Times said, citing people familiar with his efforts.

What next?

Musk said on social media that despite his departure, the "DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government." Some of his "most prominent deputies appear to be ensconced in their new government roles," the Times said. But it's "unclear how much power the group will maintain without its famous leader," USA Today said.

Donald Trump wasn't kidding when he promised "the most extraordinary first 100 days of any presidency in American history", said Jonathan Chait in The Atlantic. Since his 20 January inauguration, Trump has passed an avalanche of executive orders (139 and counting) designed to dismantle traditional constraints on presidential power, and to advance his agenda: threatening law firms, universities and media owners into compliance; authorising Elon Musk's Doge to "cripple" the federal bureaucracy; firing the heads of 18 federal watchdogs; "disappearing" innocent migrant workers; and deporting foreign students who have written anti-Israel articles.

It's "less a new administration", said Andrew Sullivan in The Times, and more a "vengeful monarchy". The "trappings of a republic remain", but they are increasingly mere "facades". And for what, asked Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer. King Donald's assault on US universities has triggered a brain drain. His attack on the global order has been "ruinous" for the reputation of the US. He promised Americans he would bring down costs, but his trade war is set to fuel inflation and perhaps trigger a recession. "Make America Great Again? Trumpism doesn't do what it says on the baseball cap."

Tell that to Trump's supporters, said Kimberley A. Strassel in The Wall Street Journal. "Creative destruction" is exactly what they wanted: they're fed up of the waste and "indolence" of Washington elites, and they voted for Trump to tear it all up. Besides, said Harry Cole in The Sun, who says his "manic" approach isn't working? "Woke and trans sacred cows have been slaughtered" by presidential decree; wasteful spending has "gone up in smoke". Countries are begging for new trade deals, and illegal border crossings, according to the administration, are down by 95%.

I've "detested" almost all of Trump 2.0, said David Brooks in The New York Times, but even I have to admire his team's "energy". It's like "a supercar with 1,000 horsepower", while his Democratic opponents coast around on "mopeds". If they want to win back power, they'll need to whip up some of that élan vital.

The resistance is already building, albeit not yet in Congress, said the FT. The bond markets have forced Trump to rein in his tariffs. The Supreme Court has taken a stand against illegal deportations. American voters, fretting about their wallets and retirement plans, are starting to abandon him too: Trump has one of the lowest approval ratings of any president after 100 days, at 40%.

If Democrats win next year's midterm elections, said Katie Stallard in The New Statesman, he could spend his last two years in office fighting off investigations and impeachments, ensuring his authoritarian agenda is derailed. But that's assuming, of course, the midterms actually happen. On the current trajectory, we may not get "free and fair elections in 2026, let alone a peaceful transfer of power in 2028".

Donald Trump may be president, but ever since Inauguration Day, it has been Elon Musk who's seemingly held the power of the federal government in the palm of his hand. As a leader of this administration's DOGE effort, Musk has directed the dismantling of major government agencies and initiatives. While Trump is the one granted constitutional authority, Musk has often seemed more interested in actually wielding executive power — at least until now.

"At some point," Trump told reporters on Monday, Musk is "going to be going back" to run his various companies, including the financially struggling Tesla car manufacturers in which the majority of his vast fortune is tied. "He wants to." A day later, Wisconsin voters delivered a stinging rebuke to Musk, decisively voting against the conservative Supreme Court candidate he had backed. This defeat was quickly followed by a Politico report that Trump had begun forecasting Musk's imminent departure to his inner circle, predicting it could take place "in the coming weeks."

What did the commentators say?

Musk's DOGE enterprise was "never supposed to become a permanent fixture in Washington," said The Associated Press. Musk had initially been hired as a "temporary government employee," a congressionally created position that allows both executive and legislative branches to hire workers for "specific short-term initiatives" up to 130 days, said Fox News. DOGE itself is slated to be "dissolved" on July 4, 2026, "according to Trump's executive order."

Nevertheless, Musk's work appears to be concluding "faster than anticipated," said the AP, and Musk has offered differing timelines for his potential exit. The world's richest man recently said he was "confident" he'd be able to "finish most of his stated aim of cutting $1 trillion in federal spending" before May, when his official governmental status is slated to end, Reuters said. But when asked by Fox Business' Larry Kudlow last month whether he planned "to go another year," Musk said, "Yeah, I think so."

Trump, too, has denied Politico's report, despite having offered a similar sentiment just days earlier. The "murkiness" of Musk's potential departure, including the possibility that he may simply "downgrade his public involvement" in the Trump administration, is "typical for a president who hates to be boxed in or give his critics validation," said Time.

Rumors of Musk's chronologically nebulous departure come amid a "parade of humiliation for the world's richest edgelord" due to the Wisconsin Supreme Court election and sinking Tesla sales, CNN said. "The question," said The Washington Post, is whether the GOP's Wisconsin loss could be the "beginning of a bigger loss of influence" for Musk within the White House. It's unclear whether the episode will "sour the relationship between him and Trump," said Barry Burden, the director of the University of Wisconsin's Elections Research Center, to the Post. While Trump has steadfastly supported the man many consider his de facto co-president, the recent election loss "could be the start of a slow divorce between the two of them."

What's next?

Musk's governmental role is "one factor weighing on Tesla's stock," CNBC said. Politico's report on the CEO's pending departure from the administration was enough to push the company's stock "more than 5% higher" shortly after it was published, as investors hoped the move would allow Musk to "return his focus on the struggling electric vehicle maker."

Conversely, Musk's presence in Washington has been a "colossal distraction and a magnet for controversy" among "what should be a unified Republican team," said Time. "Traditional Republicans have been counting on" Musk to follow Trump's penchant for ignominious dismissals. But even if Musk is encouraged to "play a lower-profile role" in the White House, said The Wall Street Journal, "that may not be an easy sell to a flamboyant billionaire."

Elon Musk can either run Tesla, or he can carry on as President Trump's first buddy. "But he can't do both," said Matthew Lynn in The Daily Telegraph. The tech billionaire's controversial role as Doge's slasher-in-chief is starting to inflict "real damage" on his electric car firm, with sales plummeting by more than 70% in Australia and Germany, and 45% in Europe overall compared with this time last year. Tesla's share price has halved; showrooms are being picketed; and liberals are covering their Teslas with stickers reading "I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy".

The carmaker was already facing a "much more crowded market", said Jim Norton in the same paper, because Chinese rivals have muscled their way in with cheaper alternatives. But Musk's political antics – slashing federal jobs in the US, blasting European leaders, endorsing far-right parties – have turned one of the most coveted electric vehicle brands "toxic".

This is not how oligarchy is meant to work, said Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian. And both Musk and Trump seem to be "rattled": just look at last week's tragic Tesla sales pitch on the White House lawn, where the US president tried to flog Musk's electric vehicles to his gas-guzzler, pick-up-driving Maga faithful. Trump is all about winning, so he'll hate the impression that being on Team Trump has the "reverse Midas touch".

As for Musk, said Charlie Warzel in The Atlantic, I've never seen the poor centi-billionaire looking so "defeated". It's not just Tesla. European governments are also looking for alternatives to replace Musk's Starlink satellites. His personal brand is crumbling under the weight of his brash political interventions – and that's a big problem for the world's richest man.

Musk's value rests on a certain "image": that he, a brilliant "Tony Stark type", can bend the world to his will through the force of his "singular ability". That perception has fuelled confidence in his firms, even as the mogul took "wild business bets". But "slashing" government services relied upon by millions of Americans, as he is doing at Doge, is a risk "orders of magnitude" larger than anything he's done before. "Musk is playing a dangerous game, and he looks to be losing control of the narrative."

President Donald Trump gets a lot of his political support from farm country. But those who put food on our tables are worried that his policies, from tariffs to funding freezes, will make it harder for them to do their jobs.

The prospect of a Trump-created trade war has farmers "on edge," said The Washington Post. One Iowa farm family said the president's tariffs will drive up the costs of Chinese-made herbicides and tractors they use, and will likely cut off the markets for soybeans (China) and corn (Mexico) that the state produces in abundance. Hawkeye State producers "don't know where we're going to be as far as our soybean and corn markets," said Suzanne Shirbroun, whose family grows both crops. It's a "fresh element of worry" as the nation's farmers deal with an "unforgiving business environment," said the Post.

The concerns go beyond tariffs. The "rapid-fire array of directives" from the Trump administration has "paused federal funding on a range of programs and grants" that benefit farmers, said The New York Times. The DOGE-driven funding freeze at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) briefly "left hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food and supplies sitting in ports," while other federal programs — including those that pay farmers for energy production and soil conservation — have also been halted. The nation's farmers "don't need any more uncertainty than they already have," said Nick Levendofsky, the executive director of the Kansas Farmers Union.

What did the commentators say?

Farmers have been "played for suckers" by Trump, said Ben Palen, a fifth-generation farmer, at the Kansas Reflector. Palen's fellow farmers supported Trump "because he promised less regulation and greater prosperity" to the agriculture sector. That's not what has happened so far. Instead, the "only constant is chaos." But Trump won't pay the price for the uncertainty he has created for agriculture. Instead, the pain will be felt by "farmers, small towns and Main Street businesses" in the rural red states that gave him their votes. The resulting "economic and social consequences could be unprecedented," said Palen.

"Every consumer feels it at the grocery store" when farmers feel pain, said Rob Larew, the president of the National Farmers Union, at MSNBC. Farmers take on an "immense amount of financial risk" to plant crops and raise livestock when all that work could be wiped out by bad weather or a turn in the financial markets. The programs Trump has frozen have traditionally helped those farmers "stay afloat when times get tough." The new administration has added "more uncertainty to a stressed farm economy."

What next?

American farmers are "struggling to make critical decisions ahead of the spring thaw," said NBC News. The funding freeze comes at a crucial moment in the "seasonal cycle of many farms." It's when most crops are planted and animals are born, and nature keeps moving even if the federal government does not. Farmers find it "difficult — if not impossible — to pause or reverse course." The delays in federal funding "might not seem like a big deal for someone who is not a farmer," said Ang Roell, a farmer and beekeeper in Massachusetts. "But it actually is."

What happened

Workers across the federal government received emails Saturday afternoon instructing them to reply with approximately "5 bullets of what you accomplished last week" by the end of Monday. Earlier Saturday, Elon Musk said on X that "failure to respond" to the upcoming email would be "taken as a resignation."

The emails were sent from the White House Office of Personnel Management, which "has been largely taken over by Musk's U.S. DOGE Service," The Washington Post said.

Who said what

Federal employees and administration officials "scrambled throughout the weekend to interpret Musk's unusual mandate," The Associated Press said. After issuing sometimes confusing and contradictory guidance, "appointees of President Donald Trump" at the FBI, Directorate of National Intelligence and the Departments of Defense, State, Energy, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services told their employees not to respond to the email.

Those instructions effectively "countermanded" Musk's order, "challenging the broad authority" Trump has "given the world's richest man to make drastic changes to the federal bureaucracy," The New York Times said. "The public pushback reflects a growing unease — and, in some cases, alarm — behind the scenes across the Trump administration" about Musk's apparent "unchecked power." The email scheme "came together in a matter of hours" after Trump said on social media he wanted Musk and DOGE to "get more aggressive" in shrinking the government, The Wall Street Journal said.

What next?

The episode set in motion a "power struggle between Musk" and Trump appointees, Politico said, marking the "first sign that even staunch Trump loyalists are beginning to flex their political muscle against Musk, an unelected 'special government employee.'"

Despite all the ambiguities surrounding the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency effort, there is little doubt that the Elon Musk-helmed enterprise is among the most consequential features of President Donald Trump's second term so far. Largely undeterred by various legal attempts at constraint, Musk and company have pushed ahead with DOGE's campaign promise of a slash-and-burn rampage through the federal government.

Democratic lawmakers have scrambled to form a coherent bulwark of opposition, but lately, a new line of DOGE criticism has emerged from an unlikely source: Republican lawmakers who have begun cautiously raising concerns about how the program is affecting their home districts and constituents.

What did the commentators say?

Capitol Hill conservatives are "growing unnerved" by a sense that DOGE is an "imprecise exercise," said Axios, as "job and funding cuts are now hitting GOP lawmakers' districts and states." All this is occurring amid a "larger conflict" over the White House's legal authority to "bypass Congress on these decisions." While most Republican lawmakers are opting for a "quieter approach" rather than frontal criticisms of Musk and the Trump administration, their anxieties "underscore the clash between shrinking government and parochial interests," said CBS News.

"Congress can't do anything except complain about it," said Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley during a press call this week. The comment was a "stark admission" that there is "little the GOP might be able or willing to do" despite party members' growing "discomfort" over DOGE's impact and effects, Politico said.

It's "far from a full-fledged GOP mutiny," said U.S. News & World Report. The "overwhelming majority" of Republican lawmakers have either cheered or "ducked questions" about DOGE's work. One move that has received particular pushback from Republicans is the limiting of National Institute of Health grants. Those caps are "poorly conceived," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and should instead be a "smart, targeted approach" so as to "not hinder life-saving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions," said Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.).

Republicans are "particularly uneasy" with how DOGE's cuts have affected veterans who have been "disproportionately affected" by the group's expansive layoffs, Politico said. And this past week a "coalition" of New York Republican lawmakers offered a "rare sign of pushback" against the White House over cuts to the World Trade Center Health Program, which oversees aid for emergency workers who have been medically affected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, The New York Times said. Although the conservative lawmakers' reactions began as "more muted" than that of their Democratic colleagues, their outcry became more "vocal" in a sign that "blowback to the firings was widespread."

What next?

Republicans have been receiving a "deluge of calls from worried constituents," said CNN, prompting some to begin "testing the waters for what a new era of pushback in a second Trump term looks like." To that end, some GOP lawmakers are "privately sitting down with representatives" from the largest federal employee union. Others remain "in the dark on what changes or cuts are occurring" and have resorted to using "back channels" to understand the scope and scale of DOGE's efforts before making any public moves. Republicans have unleashed a "frantic flurry of calls and texts" to members of the Trump administration, resulting in some "some small, scattered successes" such as the rehiring of Department of Agriculture employees involved in tracking cases of bird flu, said Politico.

Ultimately, Republicans are "not without leverage" when it comes to guarding the legislative branch's financial authority against potential executive branch overreach, said Axios. Trump will need to keep "nearly every GOP lawmaker sated" to pass his budget bill later this year. Given the party's "razor-thin majority" in the House, the administration simply "cannot afford more than a couple of defections" when the vote comes to the floor.

The Department of Government Efficiency is in a state of flux thanks to a recent court filing by the Trump administration stating that billionaire Elon Musk, the man personally named by President Donald Trump as being in charge of DOGE, is not running the advisory body at all. And whether Musk is officially in charge or not could affect DOGE's authority.

DOGE has spent the past few weeks hacking its way through the inner workings of the federal government, firing thousands of public servants. Given Trump and Musk's many public statements about the latter's role at DOGE, this new court filing has thrown the entire operation into uncertainty.

What did the commentators say?

Despite Trump's previous claim that Musk "will lead the Department of Government Efficiency" alongside since-departed co-leader Vivek Ramaswamy, the president's day-one executive order establishing the group "did not say who its 'administrator' would be," said The New York Times. Nevertheless, Trump "often" refers to Musk as the "functional leader of the DOGE effort" — an ambiguity that deepened with White House official Joshua Fisher's court filing this week, which stated plainly that Musk was simply a White House "adviser" and "not the U.S. DOGE service administrator" or even "an employee of the U.S. DOGE service." Instead, the White House's position is that Musk "can only advise the president and communicate the president's directives" to their intended recipients, Reuters said.

The "mystery" surrounding DOGE's structure and ambiguous leadership "does not appear limited to members of the public" said ABC News. Trump administration officials have "similarly struggled with the question in court."

The White House's claims that "legally, on paper" Musk is not in charge of DOGE are likely to "shield Musk from ethics and court scrutiny," said Vox. They also place his role on "firmer legal footing" by framing his participation in the context of the president "running the executive branch — through Musk, his instrument." This may be true in the strictest, most literal sense, but is "quite misleading in practice." While "technically" Musk can only advise the various DOGE teams established as employees of their respective government agencies and departments, "practically, his advice is not really optional."

Sussing out Musk's "exact role" within the DOGE effort "could be key in the legal fight" over the group's activities, said The Associated Press. Framing Musk as a mere adviser can be used to push back against criticism that he has "too much power for someone who isn't elected or Senate-confirmed." The filing creates "legal insulation" for Musk, agreed former Deputy Attorney General John Yoo at Fortune. As an adviser without any ability to enact policy on his own, "Musk cannot be sued for DOGE activities," and any subsequent suits would "really be against the president or the United States government" instead.

What next?

The true as-of-yet unstated DOGE administrator could "conceivably" be Musk's longtime "right-hand man" Steve Davis, said the Times. Alternately, it could be Brad Smith, who served in the first Trump administration and who has been "intimately involved in DOGE's moves." Whoever the administrator is, they have until early October to "submit a report to the president regarding implementation" of various DOGE initiatives and objectives detailed in an executive order issued on Feb. 11.

Ultimately, though, the "issue is not who is 'technically' the administrator, who has the title," Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said to CNN. "Elon Musk is clearly running the show."

There is perhaps no clandestine institution on Earth more storied than the CIA, but over the past three weeks, the agency's goals have shifted significantly as President Donald Trump continues his unprecedented efforts to reshape the federal government. Less than a month into the Trump administration, the Central Intelligence Agency finds itself in the president's rapidly changing crosshairs, joining the many federal programs that have offered employees legally dubious buyout offers. As Trump, who has long railed against a supposed "deep state" of nebulous law enforcement and national security interests, casts his attention toward the CIA, experts are left wondering what the world's premier spy enterprise might look like should the president realize his vision.

Infusing the agency with 'renewed energy'

The buyout offers are a "signal to those who oppose Trump's agenda to find work elsewhere," said The Wall Street Journal. The goal is to "bring the agency in line with President Trump's priorities, including targeting drug cartels," and to have a workforce suited to the agency's "new goals, which also include Trump's trade war and undermining China." More broadly, Trump's vision for the agency is to have a "greater focus on the Western Hemisphere."

The buyouts and renewed focus on CIA priorities are part of a "holistic strategy to infuse the Agency with renewed energy," a CIA spokesperson said to CBS News. The goal is to "provide opportunities for rising leaders to emerge, and better position the CIA to deliver on its mission." The decision to include the CIA in Trump's broader federal buyout initiative appears to have come from newly installed Director John Ratcliffe — a longtime Trump loyalist — who "personally decided he also wanted the CIA to be involved," CNN said. However, one source said to the outlet, the effort may be "far less sweeping" than for agencies "not considered to be doing national security work." For instance, "some employees," such as those "handling high-priority tasks," would "not be eligible for the offer," said NBC News.

'Radical, unplanned and self-contradictory'

The CIA's overarching mission of protecting U.S. interests "requires depth of thought, strategy and long-term planning," said The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Trump's plan to remake the agency exhibits "none of those qualities," and is instead "reactive, poorly designed and likely to achieve the opposite of its stated goal." Already there is "panic within the broader national security community," said NPR. Experts are worrying about the possibility that "years of experience, talent and secrets could soon be heading out the door." It's still unclear whether other intelligence agencies would "follow suit with a buyout offer," said the Journal.

Crucially, none of the Trump administration's planned reforms "freeze the actual new and emerging threats" eager to "pounce on any perception of polarization or additional vulnerabilities," said the Robert Lansing Institute for Global Threats and Democratic Studies. It is "entirely possible," then, that a host of American adversaries "stand to benefit the most" from a pivot from "reasonable, dedicated, thoughtful and necessary reform and review toward a radical, unplanned and self-contradictory near-elimination of the intelligence agencies in their conventional sense."