Scholten introduces bill to open Musk and DOGE to FOIA provisions
U.S. Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-Grand Rapids) on Thursday introduced legislation she says will provide accountability about the actions of billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
According to a press release from Scholten's office, the Consistent Legal Expectations and Access to Records (CLEAR) Act, clarifies that temporary organizations like DOGE are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
'Given the breadth of power these organizations wield, they should be subject to the same standard of scrutiny and public information sharing that other agencies are beholden to,' stated the release.
DOGE was created by President Donald Trump through an executive order using an authority that allows the president to set up 'temporary organizations.' Scholten introduced the legislation to make it clear that any organization created in that manner is automatically subject to FOIA requests.
'In the first two weeks of Trump's second term, chaos has reigned and has many asking… what is happening? An unelected businessman with numerous conflicts of interest has been given unprecedented access to government data and Americans' personal information,' said Scholten. 'These are taxpayer dollars he's controlling, and the American people deserve to know what's happening. Knowledge is power, and in America, that power belongs to the people. My bill will make sure that no president, Republican or Democrat, can hide their actions from the American people.'
Democrats and transparency advocates have raised the alarm over the actions of DOGE, most especially the access its members have been granted to the Treasury Department's payment system, which handles trillions of dollars in payments, including income taxes, Social Security benefits and veterans pay.
The bill would apply retroactively, meaning all of DOGE's records since it was formed would become public if the legislation is signed into law.
U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin has also expressed concerns about accountability for Musk and the actions of DOGE.
'The targeting across our federal govt of law enforcement, to flight safety inspectors, to weather forecasters or those who test our drinking water, to doctors conducting clinical trials for children with cancer, is not just wrong – it will result in Americans being less safe,' wrote Slotkin on X, the social media platform owned by Musk. 'Elon Musk, an unelected billionaire, now has access to Americans' private and personal information, including sensitive tax documents. This raises all kinds of questions about the use and abuse of that information for targeting of citizens, to use for legal or financial gain.'
Samuel Bagenstos is the Frank G. Millard Professor of Law at the University of Michigan who specializes in civil rights, labor and employment law, health law and governance, told the Advance this week that 'there's a value to the legal process.
'Even if at the end of the day, that process doesn't result in an injunction stopping Trump from doing what he's doing, lawsuits and the process around lawsuits help to bring to light information about what's going on. They both help to publicize what's going on, because the fact of a lawsuit and legal proceedings will get reported by journalists and become a focal point for public discussion, but also in the process of a lawsuit, you have opportunities for courts to order the defendants to provide information to the plaintiffs,' he said.
Bagenstos has frequently testified before Congress, argued four cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, served as principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration, and most recently was general counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Biden administration. He was also nominated by the Democratic Party to run for Michigan Supreme Court in 2018.
'Right now, we don't know exactly what Elon Musk is doing within the executive branch, although there are lots of reasons to worry a lot about what he's doing based on his own statements. But a court can order him to provide information about what he's doing or can order the government to provide information about has Elon Musk been granted access to the federal payment system? What is the scope of that access? Who authorized that access? Does Elon Musk or someone working with him have the authority now to stop payments made by the federal government? Who authorized that and what is the basis on which those individuals were appointed to the government?' Bagenstos said.
'These are all questions that are really important for us to know the answer to, but we might not be able to trust answers that are given by White House press officials. But a court might be able to get more authoritative information on that, so there are lots of reasons why even if at the end of the day courts aren't gonna stop everything Trump's gonna do, there are lots of reasons why we might want to continue to be out there making the case that what Trump is doing is an abuse of his legal authority.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
We're creating AI that could surveil US citizens. And the government is in on it.
Tech companies' lack of transparency and accountability in developing surveillance tools that governments can use is unacceptable. President Donald Trump recently gathered CEOs for a summit about renewing the United States 'spiritually and financially.' At the top of the agenda was a closer look at 'American values' such as faith and freedom. There is cause for alarm, however. Centuries after Americans declared independence from the British monarchy, our freedom and liberty are under threat − not only from foreign governments like China, but potentially our own. America's surveillance state is spreading as the federal government collects personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans. In the age of artificial intelligence, with data collection accelerating at an unprecedented rate, our privacy has never been more vulnerable. Who is the culprit? The data collectors range from the National Security Agency to Silicon Valley's cadre of data-hungry technology companies. Add to that list a new organization: Palantir. While it is not a household name like Google or Netflix, it is soon to be a common domestic concern. The technology company's surveillance operation has exploded in recent months, raising the possibility of creating a full-fledged surveillance state. Opinion: AI knows we shouldn't trust it for everything. I know because I asked it. Since January, Palantir has received more than $113 million in federal funds, according to The New York Times, not including a $795 million Defense Department contract awarded in May. While the federal government increased data sharing across agencies (with Palantir's help), the company continues to shop its technology to the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. AI technology could be repurposed for sinister uses We are talking about technology that can be weaponized. While Palantir's current focus is to identify people in the United States illegally, tracking movements in real time, the company is also building the infrastructure that could be used for a massive surveillance state. Former Palantir employees have warned about the potential for the company's AI tools to surveil American citizens with a disregard for personal privacy. It is not so far-fetched. Palantir's AI software is used by the Israeli Defense Forces to strike targets in Gaza. It is used to assist the U.S. Defense Department in analyzing drone footage. And it has been used by the Los Angeles Police Department to forecast crime patterns. This is called 'predictive policing.' If "Minority Report"was not a horror movie before, it is now. Given the government's penchant for abusing power (see: COVID-19 censorship or the NSA spying scandal), does this not seem like an obvious move against our civil liberties? For years, the NSA engaged in the mass surveillance of Americans' telephone records, as was exposed in 2013. Between 2001 and 2007, government wiretapping − executed without warrants − affected millions of U.S. citizens. Now, the same agencies are tapping into the power of AI to expand government surveillance in once unimaginable ways. Opinion: AI is changing our world. At what point will it change our reality? Of course, the federal government can already access a wide range of our personal data, but it is often separated by agency. Washington, DC, can create exponentially more detailed profiles on all of us by sharing data with the help of Palantir's AI tools. Even when surveilling noncitizens, the government's data collection inevitably tracks individual Americans based on their own interactions with these noncitizens. The government's data collection is based on information from police departments, financial institutions and other entities, like Palantir. Big government and big tech partnership raises concerns Even if the alliance between the government and Palantir works as intended, it is a potential threat to our civil liberties. Political dissidents could become targets. Not even those with limited public personas are safe from the state's detailed profiling machine. These systems are not perfect, and neither are our leaders. What happens when AI systems fail? What happens when data collection goes haywire? Palantir is hardly alone. OpenAI recently launched OpenAI for Government, which aims to equip federal, state and local leaders with advanced AI tools. OpenAI claims to serve the 'public good' and 'bolster national security readiness,' but why would private citizens take that at face value? What does 'readiness' actually mean, in practice? At the moment, many of our elected officials do not have answers to these questions, or they are just ignoring them. The same goes for OpenAI and Palantir, which are all too comfortable amassing ever-larger federal contracts and greater market share. This lack of transparency or accountability is unacceptable. The only thing worse than the overreach of Big Government is Big Tech in bed with Big Government. For those who care about freedom and liberty, now is the time to speak up, before it is too late. Peyton Hornberger serves as communications director at The Alliance for Secure AI, a nonprofit organization that educates the public about the implications of advanced artificial intelligence.
New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
As Consumers Lose Their Appetite, Food Brands Fight to Keep Wall St. Happy
For generations, Cool Whip topped pies. Tropical punch Kool-Aid was served at children's birthday parties. And an Oscar Mayer bologna sandwich was a lunchbox staple. But in recent years, the big packaged food brands that dominated American pantries and refrigerators for decades are struggling as consumers spend less on brand-name cookies, spaghetti sauce and cream cheese. The companies are grappling with a number of stressors. Shoppers, feeling pinched by higher food prices over the past two years, are cutting back or trading down to less expensive private labels. Others are eschewing highly processed foods for healthier, more natural items. And the continued rise of weight-loss drugs like Ozempic are reducing cravings for sugary and salty snacks. Among the debates consuming executives in boardrooms of U.S. food companies is which brands consumers are buying and avoiding — and how large and lasting the impact of the weight-loss drugs will be, said Charlie Hadid, Morgan Stanley's head of consumer investment banking in the Americas. As growth in the packaged goods industry stalls, its stocks have lagged. While the broad S&P 500 index has gained 40 percent over the last two years, an index of food and beverage stocks has flatlined. To jump-start growth and satisfy investors, companies are starting to re-engineer some of the big deals of the past, banking on a smaller-is-better, or narrower-is-better, strategy. Source: FactSet By The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
Remember the TikTok Ban? Does Anyone?
Few noticed when President Trump postponed the deadline to enforce a statutory ban on TikTok, the Chinese-owned video-sharing app used by almost half of all Americans, for the third time. Even allowing for the torrent of other news, it's astonishing how so little attention is being paid to what just months ago was deemed so serious a national security risk that both Democrats and Republicans demanded immediate and unprecedented action by adopting the ban. Even more bizarrely, the risk — even if overhyped — hasn't diminished. It has only grown as our relations with the People's Republic of China become even more adversarial. The TikTok saga is in many ways a microcosm of our erratic and unprincipled approach to the varied challenges presented by Chinese technology. We awaken to risks of a particular technology only after it has been widely adopted. The few laws we have to address Chinese threats target only specific apps or equipment, depend on discretionary action by the executive branch or are so broad that they have limited effect. On top of all of that, they are often thwarted or delayed by judicial challenges anyway. Politicians eschew even partial solutions for fear that any compromise might look weak to voters. It seems that as our exposure to invasive and risky Chinese technology expands, our paralysis to do anything about it deepens. Launched in 2016, TikTok became the web's fastest-growing app ever, with an astonishingly effective algorithm that showed users precisely the videos that they wanted (or perhaps didn't realize they wanted). Almost two billion people use it around the world (though it's banned in China itself), 170 million of them in the United States. That includes almost 65 percent of American teenagers. Like most social media platforms, it collects vast amounts of data about its users. Mr. Trump tried to ban TikTok during his first term, fearing that it could be used to spread Chinese disinformation and that its owner, the Chinese company ByteDance, might be required to turn over details about American users to its government. After courts blocked his attempt, the Biden administration sought a compromise in which an American board would oversee TikTok's operations in the United States and user data would be kept in Oracle's U.S.-based computers. Although the entire arrangement was to be subject to extensive audit and government oversight, the Biden administration — worried that China might still evade the restrictions and fearful that Republicans would accuse it of accommodating China — abandoned the proposal. In the charged atmosphere of the presidential campaign, no party wanted to look weak on China, so both Republicans and Democrats rushed to enact a ban without seriously investigating whether a better solution existed. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
