Following the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States, a new approach emerged in integrating technology business leaders into government decision-making. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, was invited by Trump to serve as an advisor on several government consultative boards. In early 2025, Trump signed an executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and appointed Musk as its head. Musk was tasked with streamlining the federal bureaucracy, eliminating inefficiencies, and identifying budget waste.
This move effectively made Musk, a private tech entrepreneur, a key figure in the overhaul of Trump’s administration, granting him direct access to various federal agencies. Musk was now classified as a “special government employee”and senior presidential advisor, leading a cross-departmental DOGE team to restructure the government. Such an appointment was unprecedented, effectively positioning a tech CEO as a “czar” of bureaucratic reform within the White House.
Trump had several strategic reasons for selecting Elon Musk for this role. Musk’s reputation as an innovator and a highly successful entrepreneur in the technology and manufacturing sectors was a major attraction. Trump sought to stimulate US manufacturing and technology, and Musk symbolized the success of electric vehicle production and space exploration.
During Trump’s previous presidency in 2017, Musk had served as an informal advisor, attempting to inject scientific perspectives into an administration that was often skeptical of scientific consensus. Musk, at the time, believed he could make a positive impact from within, such as by advocating for carbon tax policies as a market-based solution to climate change. However, his efforts were largely unsuccessful, as Trump ultimately withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement.
By 2025, Musk’s appointment aligned with Trump’s agenda to “clean up” bureaucracy. Musk was known for his outspoken criticism of “bureaucratic red tape” and what he called the “woke mind virus” in institutions. From Trump’s perspective, Musk brought credibility and technological expertise to overhaul the government. Trump publicly declared his confidence that Musk would uncover “hundreds of billions of dollars” in waste and inefficiencies within the federal system.
Musk was chosen precisely because he was an outsider, someone willing to take radical measures without being bound by traditional political constraints. His skepticism toward excessive regulation and diversity programs made him an ideal partner for Trump’s vision. The appointment also signaled closer integration between the private tech sector and the federal government, which reassured pro-business investors.
However, Musk’s own motivations cannot be ignored: his businesses heavily rely on government policies. SpaceX and Tesla have benefited from federal funding, subsidies, and regulatory policies. By embedding himself within the administration, Musk could ensure that government policies aligned with his business interests, whether in securing NASA contracts for space exploration or influencing regulations on electric vehicles. From a techno-realism perspective, this represents a symbiotic relationship: governments need technological innovation, while tech leaders seek favorable regulations.
The Impact of Musk’s Appointment on US Policy
Bureaucratic Reform and Government Structure
Musk, through DOGE, led a large-scale purge of the federal bureaucracy. Thousands of government employees were dismissed, diversity and inclusion programs were eliminated, and several agencies underwent structural overhauls. Trump hailed this as a necessary cleanup of bloated government inefficiencies, while critics labeled it a dangerous experiment in public administration. Legal challenges emerged, questioning the legitimacy of Musk’s decisions and their impact on government accountability.
Economic Policy and Budget Cuts
Trump gave Musk the authority to identify and eliminate unnecessary federal expenditures, particularly within the Pentagon’s trillion-dollar budget. Musk conducted audits of major defense contracts, eliminating those deemed inefficient or excessive. While Trump and his supporters saw this as a bold cost-cutting move, critics warned that sudden budget reductions could cripple public services and disrupt essential government operations.
Technology and Innovation Policy
Musk pushed for the adoption of cutting-edge technology in multiple sectors, including automation in civil administration and reforming FAA policies to accelerate advancements in aviation. At the same time, he ensured that SpaceX’s interests were prioritized in national space policy. His close ties with Trump strengthened the role of private companies in shaping national technological policy, reinforcing Big Tech’s dominance in political and defense strategies.
Social and Immigration Policies
Musk exposed alleged financial waste within FEMA’s migrant relief programs, leading to a policy shift towards harsher immigration spending cuts under Trump. Additionally, DOGE dismantled various diversity and equity initiatives within federal institutions. The result was a significant shift in US social policies toward a more conservative and exclusionary framework.
The Growing Power of Big Tech Over the State
Musk’s role highlights a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the government and corporations. Traditionally, Big Tech operated as a partner to governments, but Musk’s direct intervention in policy decisions blurred the lines between corporate and state authority. His control over DOGE effectively privatized key governmental decision-making, leading to concerns that the state was being co-opted by corporate interests.
Techno-Realism Analysis: The Struggle Between State Power and Big Tech
The phenomenon of Elon Musk within the Trump administration reflects a new power dynamic between the state and big tech corporations. Through the lens of Techno-Realism, we understand that technology and its key actors are now inseparable from political and policy-making processes. Rather than existing as separate entities, tech corporations possess the dual ability to collaborate with and compete against the state in shaping the future. Musk’s involvement illustrates the realist aspect of this relationship: governments seek the innovation and efficiency associated with the tech sector, while tech corporations and their leaders require state support and favorable regulations.
From the state’s perspective, Donald Trump leveraged Musk’s image to legitimize and accelerate his administration’s agenda. Aligning with a visionary CEO reinforced the perception that Trump’s government was pro-business, pro-innovation, and unconventional in problem-solving. Musk effectively became an extension of Trump’s authority, operating with more flexibility than traditional bureaucrats. This is a classic example of the blurred lines between the public and private sectors: Musk led initiatives with significant government influence, despite not being an elected official or cabinet member. Techno-Realism views this as a natural development where figures with substantial resources (technological, financial, and public influence) are given governance roles because they are seen as capable of delivering swift, tangible outcomes. The synergy of interests was evident, Trump sought efficiency and bureaucratic disruption, while Musk desired access and influence over policy. Both parties found common ground in an unwritten agreement: big tech supports the state, and the state grants big tech greater authority.
However, this phenomenon also raises critical risks and questions. Democratic accountability is the primary concern. Musk, as a de facto shadow official, is not subject to the usual checks and balances of government appointees. He was not elected by the people, did not undergo Senate confirmation, yet wielded influence over decisions affecting public life. This challenges democratic governance principles. The dominance of corporate figures in public policy sets a dangerous precedent where corporate interests may override public interests. Additionally, Musk continued to lead companies that conducted business with the government, creating potential conflicts of interest, such as influencing Pentagon budget cuts while selling rocket services to the same institution. Despite White House assurances that Musk would avoid conflicts, skepticism remained. Techno-Realism teaches us to approach this matter without utopian illusions: the involvement of tech leaders can accelerate innovation, but it can also steer policy towards the agendas of a select group of ultra-wealthy individuals.
The power dynamics between the state and big tech also appear fragile and highly negotiable. The state-tech alliance is not a permanent superior-subordinate relationship but rather a shifting coalition of interests. The government retains ultimate legal authority (Trump could still execute policies even if Musk withdrew), but losing key figures’ support can damage policy effectiveness and public perception. Meanwhile, tech giants understand that they are not immune to political decisions.
In the Techno-Realist framework, Musk’s role demonstrates that big tech companies now possess resources comparable to nation-states: capital, technological capabilities, and massive support bases (Musk’s social media following rivals that of political leaders). This enables Musk to operate as a quasi-state actor. His platform, X, can influence public opinion or pressure bureaucracies, as seen when he exposed FEMA’s inefficiencies through direct posts, prompting immediate action, power traditionally reserved for state institutions or major media outlets. Techno-Realism acknowledges that tech CEOs hold both “soft power” and “hard power” (via control over critical infrastructure such as Starlink satellites or digital platforms) that impact geopolitical decisions. The Musk-Trump partnership can be viewed as a fusion of forces: political power through electoral legitimacy (Trump) and technological-financial power (Musk).
Ultimately, this dynamic redefines the state-corporate relationship: not as one of subordination or complete independence but as a symbiotic yet tense interaction. The state requires innovation and agility from the tech sector, while large corporations need a conducive policy environment. The Musk case exemplifies how this synergy can lead to radically different policies (such as blitzkrieg-style bureaucratic overhauls) compared to traditional governance models. However, tensions arise as roles and authority become ambiguous. Is it appropriate, for instance, for a private CEO to deactivate a government program created by the legislature? Supporters see this as an anti-establishment breakthrough, while critics argue it undermines constitutional principles.
As a concluding analysis, Musk’s role in reshaping the Trump administration underscores a crucial reality: big tech companies and their leaders have become unavoidable political players. We are entering an era where governance solutions may emerge from corporate boardrooms, just as corporate decisions are shaped by negotiations in the Oval Office. A Techno-Realist approach prevents us from falling into naive assumptions that technology will automatically improve governance (techno-optimism) or the fear that corporations will entirely overtake the state (techno-pessimism). Instead, it recognizes a continuous push-and-pull dynamic: Musk can drive real innovation and efficiency, while democratic institutions will attempt to curb excesses and integrate innovation into accountable frameworks. The power struggle between the state and big tech in this case serves as a lesson that such collaborations must be critically monitored. Musk’s involvement brings fresh perspectives and rapid transformation, but it also highlights the need for clear regulatory boundaries to prevent corporate power from exceeding democratic mandates.
Critically, Trump’s decision to partner with Musk can be seen as a grand experiment in running a government like a startup: moving fast and “breaking things.” The final evaluation remains uncertain: whether it led to greater efficiency or administrative chaos and the erosion of governance norms. What is clear is that this era marks a new chapter in government-tech relations, where both operate in a complex relationship, sometimes as partners, sometimes as rival, shaping public policy in the modern digital and global landscape.