On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order giving Musk even more power. It requires federal agencies to cooperate with his “Department of Government Efficiency” (known as DOGE) in cutting their staffing levels and restricting new hires.
In his first comments to the media since joining the Trump administration as a “special” government employee, Musk also responded to criticism that he’s launching a “hostile takeover” of the US government.
The people voted for major government reform, and that’s what people are going to get.
Are Musk’s actions akin to a “hostile takeover” of government, or a coup? I argue it’s more a form of “state capture”. Here’s what that means.
Why it’s not a coup or self-coup
Under the pretence of maximising government efficiency and productivity, DOGE has amassed quite a bit of power. It has:
- penetrated the massive system responsible for virtually all government payments
- breached sensitive databases and private medical records
- circumvented routine conflict of interest and transparency requirements
- dismantled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
- gained access to the computer systems of a number of federal agencies.
Musk’s blitzkrieg across Washington – carried out in apparent violation of numerous federal laws – has not only stirred confusion, but defied explanation.
A popular argument, supported by some historians and commentators, is that Musk’s actions amount to a coup. They argue this is not a coup in the classic sense of a takeover of the physical centres of power. Rather, it’s a seizure of digital infrastructure by an unelected group seeking to undo democratic practices and violate human rights.
This term, however, is not technically correct. The most widely accepted definition of a coup is:
an overt attempt by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting head of state using unconstitutional means.
Since Musk and Trump are bedfellows in this plot, the tech billionaire is clearly not trying to violently unseat the president.
Another possible explanation: this is a self-coup. This describes a situation in which
the sitting national leader takes decisive illegitimate action against countervailing institutions and elites to perpetuate the incumbent’s power.
In December, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol attempted a self-coup when he declared martial law in order to ostensibly protect the country from opposition forces. He quickly reversed his decision amid elite defections and mass public demonstrations.
Though self-coups are becoming more common, Musk is doing the dirty work in the US – not Trump. Also, Musk’s chief target – the bureaucracy – does not nominally offset presidential power (except in conspiracy theories).
What is ‘state capture’?
More accurately, Musk’s siege amounts to a form of “state capture”. This refers to:
the appropriation of state resources by political actors for their own ends: either private or political.
By this logic, Musk’s aim could be to capture different pieces of the US government and turn the state into a tool for wealth extraction.
State capture is a relatively simple but extremely destructive process. This is how it has played out in countries like Indonesia, Hungary, Nigeria, Russia, Sri Lanka and South Africa (Musk’s birthplace):
First, political and corporate elites gain control of formal institutions, information systems and bureaucratic policy-making processes.
Then, they use this power to apply rules selectively, make biased decisions and allocate resources based on private interests (rather than the public good).
In captured states, strongman leaders often use economic policy and regulatory decisions to reward their political friends. For instance, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Russian President Vladimir Putin and former South African President Jacob Zuma have helped their allies by:
- making government anti-trust decisions
- issuing permits and licenses
- awarding government contracts and concessions
- waiving regulations or tariffs
- conferring tax exempt status.
State capture is fundamentally a predatory process.
By taking over how the American government does business, Musk could be seeking to enrich a small but powerful network of allies.
The first beneficiary would be Trump, who is no stranger to using his office to expand his family’s business empire. With a more fully captured state, Trump can take an active role in determining how public wealth is dispersed among corporate and political elites. This decision-making power often goes hand-in-hand with “personalist” regimes, in which everything is a transaction with the leader.
The second beneficiary would be Musk himself and other Silicon Valley mega-billionaires who have bent a knee to Trump. By positioning their tech companies as the solution to what allegedly ails the federal government, particularly when it comes to the use of artificial intelligence, they stand to secure lucrative contracts handed out by the “new” state.
The third beneficiary would be the small army of engineers and technicians working with Musk to upend the American government. As loyal foot soldiers, these individuals will be compensated with career advancement, financial gains and networking opportunities, while also enjoying legal impunity. This kind of quid pro quo is how authoritarian regimes work.
What this could mean for the US
As Musk continues his assault on the federal bureaucracy, the American people will suffer the consequences.
The most immediate impact of state capture: worse decisions are made. By purging experienced civil servants, cancelling government contracts and accessing sensitive information systems, Musk’s actions will likely degrade the standard of living at home and endanger American lives abroad.
State capture also means there would be less accountability for the Trump administration’s public policy decisions. With a lack of congressional and independent oversight, key decisions over the distribution of economic benefits could be made informally behind closed doors.
Finally, state capture is inseparable from corruption. Doing business with the US federal government could soon require one to pass a loyalty test rather than a public interest test.
Trump’s enemies will encounter more hurdles, while his allies will have a seat at the table.
Lee Morgenbesser, Associate Professor, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University, Griffith University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.