Unprecedented Use of Special Government Employees Raises Serious Ethical Concerns

The Trump Administration has granted sweeping authority to “special government employees” (SGEs), the most high-profile being Elon Musk, the world’s richest person. This unprecedented use of SGEs has created a significant potential for corruption and abuse of power across the federal government.

The simplest way to address these ethical concerns would be for the Administration to return to past practice, by removing SGEs from organizational and financial decision-making roles and using them only for the limited purpose of providing specialized expertise. In the absence of such action, robust oversight of SGEs and their potential conflicts of interest is essential.

Understanding special government employees (SGEs)

SGEs are individuals who serve in the federal government on a temporary, sometimes intermittent basis. Their ongoing source of employment is usually outside the government.

Congress created the SGE category in 1962 to encourage outside experts to provide temporary services to the government, without requiring them to end their private engagements to comply with the strict conflict-of-interest rules for regular federal employees. Agencies have used SGEs on a temporary basis with or without compensation to provide advice and technical assistance on a wide range of specialized topics. However, use of SGEs has historically been limited, with more than 93 percent serving on advisory committees and other boards, councils, and commissions, according to agency data reported annually to the Office of Government Ethics.

How the Trump Administration is using SGEs

The Trump Administration has wholly subverted the intended use of SGEs by having them influence and participate in agency decisions about personnel, internal organization, contracting, and grant-making.

During the first Trump Administration, SGEs were appointed to positions of significant policy influence at a few agencies. In the second Trump Administration, that practice is now government-wide policy, with SGEs affiliated with the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being given expansive authority at federal agencies.

The DOGE teams, which include SGEs, have been:

• influencing and implementing the downsizing of the federal workforce;
• leading the dismantling and reorganization of certain agencies, offices, and programs; and
• directly accessing sensitive, confidential, and classified datasets and the source code of complex government systems that run key government services.

These functions have typically been handled by, or even restricted to, full-time officials who are deeply familiar with agency missions, programs, and relevant statutory requirements and regulations. These individuals include senior agency officials, other members of the Senior Executive Service, and trained procurement and program officers.

The potential for corruption and abuse of power

When Congress created SGEs, it recognized that this new category of temporary employee had the potential to pose unique ethical challenges, given that most SGEs continue their employment outside of government. A Senate Judiciary Committee report released in 1962 shortly after Congress created the SGE category noted that “agency watchfulness and regulation” would be necessary to “make certain that persons serving [an agency] part time who also appear on behalf of outside organizations do not abuse their access to the agency for the benefit of those organizations.”

Consider an extreme example of an SGE: Elon Musk.

• As the leader of DOGE, he has helped to direct actions to dismantle and downsize at least 11 federal agencies that have more than 65 actual or potential continuing investigations, pending complaints, or enforcement actions related to his six companies, representing at least $2.37 billion in potential liability for those entities, based on analysis by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations minority staff.
• His businesses have received $38 billion in funding over the past two decades from federal agencies and stand to receive billions more in contracts in the near future. In 2023, his businesses held nearly 100 contracts across 17 federal agencies. He is also advising on plans to outsource to contractors or privatize core government services and functions, which could generate more business opportunities for his companies.
• Under his leadership, DOGE teams, including SGEs, are accessing sensitive federal databases containing personally identifiable, confidential, or classified data on every individual and every organization that has been paid by the federal government, including his business competitors and partners.

While Musk is the most prominent example, he is far from the only SGE in the Trump Administration whose influence is extending beyond that of typical SGEs, whose actions have triggered extensive litigation, who has significant and ongoing private financial interests, or who is operating in agencies with limited oversight and ousted watchdogs. Although the Trump Administration has not disclosed the names of each individual serving in agencies as SGEs, an analysis of court filings, public records, and public reporting by Public Citizen found more than a dozen examples of SGEs serving in high-level agency roles outside of federal advisory committees.

One example is Tom Krause, who the Treasury Department confirmed was appointed as an SGE. Krause is performing the duties of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary — a role that has traditionally been held by nonpartisan career officials with decades of government service across multiple administrations. In that role, Krause oversees the government’s primary payment system, while still holding his job as a software CEO at a company with millions of dollars of active government contracts.

Unless the Administration changes its practices, oversight of SGEs will be essential to prevent and address conflicts of interest. This oversight can and should be done by agency leaders, agency-designated ethics officials, inspectors general, the Office of Government Ethics, the Government Accountability Office, and Congress.