Transcript: Inside Elon Musk and DOGE's "revolutionary" push to reshape Washington, with WIRED's Katie Drummond
Ian Bremmer:
Hello, and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. This is where you'll find extended versions of my interviews on public television. I'm Ian Bremmer, and today what happens when Silicon Valley's disrupt or die ethos collides with the machinery of the US government?
Tech titans have long wielded plenty of influence in Washington, but in the second Trump administration that clout has become supercharged. A wave of tech heavyweights have surged into President Trump's orbit, intertwining Silicon Valley's "move fast and break things" mentality with the Republican Party's agenda.
And at the heart of all of it, Elon Musk, the centibillionaire tech CEO who made his fortunes breaking industries, space and cars and social media and is now trying to break the government in the name of fixing it. Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has so far fired thousands and thousands of federal workers and has moved to shut down entire agencies. He's also faced pushback in the form of court orders and negative opinion polls, but the tech mogul says he is just getting started.
Can Musk's brand of innovation bring efficiency to Washington, or will it just inject more chaos into the system? So far that Musk-Trump alliance has defied predictions that a relationship between two famously impulsive and mercurial billionaires is destined to go up in flames. But can it last? To break it down I'm joined by WIRED Editorial Director, Katie Drummond. After years of covering Silicon Valley, WIRED has found itself in a unique position to report on the current political landscape. They're breaking dozens of scoops on DOGE's operations. We'll talk about Elon Musk's influence, Big Tech's bet on the Trump administration, and whether a Silicon Valley mindset will make or break the federal government. Let's get to it.
Katie Drummond, welcome to GZERO World.
Katie Drummond:
Thank you for having me. I'm so happy to be here.
Ian Bremmer:
So much to talk to you about. I want to start with DOGE, of course, because it's been the big story, and should it be? If we focus on all the things over the first couple months of the Trump administration, do you believe that that is the top story?
Katie Drummond:
I absolutely, I do. I mean, look, there is so much for a journalist to be covering right now, and there is so much happening on a daily basis. It's this constant stream of Trump-imposed, Trump-induced chaos, and we see that playing out everywhere. We see it playing out with immigration. We see it playing out with tariffs. But with DOGE, we are looking at and talking about the manifestation of what does it mean to have the richest person in the world arm in arm with the president, enacting his ideal scenario, what Elon Musk thinks needs to happen within the entire apparatus and infrastructure of the federal government. I mean, we are talking about every federal agency that supports and sustains this entire country.
So in the context of DOGE, you might say, well, we're talking about what a hundred people work for DOGE, give or take. They're doing this, they're doing that. It's being rebuffed in the courts. Should anyone be concerned about this? Well, of course you should. I mean, we're talking about Elon Musk who essentially paid his way into the White House now taking a machete or a hacksaw or a chainsaw, or whatever violent metaphor you want to use to the infrastructure that underpins this country. So yes, it's a huge story.
Ian Bremmer:
Is it fair to say that this is a revolutionary effort?
Katie Drummond:
Without a doubt. I mean, I think that you're spot on. We have never, at least in any sort of American history that I'm familiar with at almost 40 years of age, seen this kind of rapid attempt to dismantle the federal government, I mean, the federal infrastructure. We have seen in recent weeks, in recent months entire federal agencies effectively being dismantled. I mean, Elon Musk is trying to overthrow the federal government as we know it. So there is absolutely this revolutionary undercurrent that we are seeing play out.
And even when at WIRED we've reported on some of the recruiting efforts that went into trying to bring young technologists into DOGE. So this was playing out on message boards, forums for alumni in particular or intern alumni of Elon Musk's companies, And the messaging that was being sent out was, "Come and save the United States. Come and rescue this country." I mean, the language that these individuals have used to recruit into this effort suggests that even they themselves see this in revolutionary terms.
Now, whether that revolution is for good or for ill obviously depends on who you ask. If you ask the individuals working for DOGE, if you ask Elon Musk, they're doing the right thing. They are undertaking a revolution to save the United States. If you ask any of the civil servants or the federal workers who've lost their jobs in recent weeks, or many of the individuals that we've spoken to at WIRED, there is a deep, deep, deep sense of concern, of dread that this revolutionary effort will destroy so much of what powers this country.
Ian Bremmer:
Now I mean, if you look at historically recruitment advertisements for the Marines, or you go to see when the State Department is coming to public policy schools and how they're trying to get young men and women to participate, I mean, the messaging is not necessarily so different, so radically different from what you just suggested that DOGE is doing. But certainly what DOGE is trying to implement is radically, it's dramatically more disruptive, more transformative. So let's first talk about what it is they they're trying to do. Because I mean, publicly what we hear is they want to reduce cost, they want to improve efficiency, and they certainly want to undermine the so-called "deep state." Those who are weaponized or politicized against Trump and against a series of political leaders. If you needed to prioritize those efforts, as you've seen them so far, as well as add any others that you see them engaged in, how would you describe that to our audience?
Katie Drummond:
So Elon Musk has publicly stated repeatedly that the federal government is a rampant cesspool of fraud, of waste, of corruption, of abuse. So ostensibly the goals of DOGE are to go into these federal agencies and root all of that out. So when we look at what they are actually doing, I would describe it as first, an attempt to access as much data as possible. So we have seen DOGE operatives, whether they're going into the Treasury or the Social Security Administration, making attempts to access sensitive systems. So within the Treasury, it was the system that pays out several trillions of dollars on an annual basis. They were trying to access that system. They wanted access to look at all that data, and they wanted access to actually modify all of that data.
Same goes for Social Security. They're looking to access the systems that provide information on every person who's ever tried to obtain a Social Security number. So they are engaged in this widespread effort to obtain and amass and collate as much data and information from within these agencies as they possibly can. So that's what I would describe as step one.
Step two is they are, as you stated, and as Musk has stated publicly, they are attempting to strip as much cost as possible out of these agencies from what we can tell. So we see that play out in these layoffs that have swept across the federal government in the last few months with tens of thousands of federal workers losing their jobs. We have seen it play out with USAID where all of a sudden millions of dollars in federal aid, in grants, in humanitarian aid was essentially just kneecapped. It was just cut off. So they are attempting to basically throttle federal agencies and their ability to spend money.
We also saw this play out, as WIRED has reported in a few instances, where DOGE actually shut off government credit cards. So they basically said the spending limit on all of these credit cards is now $1. You do not have the ability to spend essentially any discretionary money. Now that is money that is used to pay for paper shredding at the Social Security Administration. They have piles and piles and piles of paper that they actually just can't pay to shred. It is used at the NIH to buy equipment and materials to conduct scientific research. I mean, these are credit cards that aren't used to pay for lunch with a friend or a colleague. These are credit cards that are used by government workers in the course of doing their day-to-day jobs.
So what we are seeing is, I would say, there's one piece of it that is accumulating and accessing as much data as possible, and then the second piece of it, I would say, is to strip as much cost out of federal agencies as rapidly as possible.
Ian Bremmer:
Now, they've talked about the fact that transparency is essential to all of the efforts that they're engaged in. You said there's about a hundred employees for DOGE so far. Have you attempted to interview any of those employees?
Katie Drummond:
We have, of course. I mean, in the course of our reporting, we are always reaching out for comment. So whenever we report on someone who works for DOGE, what they're doing inside an agency, whether they are in a leadership position or whether they are more on the grunt worker side of things, at the behest of someone in an acting administrative capacity, we always reach out for comment. We always reach out for interviews. We reach out to discuss their work. We don't hear back.
Ian Bremmer:
Where do you think they are having the most impact so far, good, bad, or indifferent?
Katie Drummond:
Within the federal government?
Ian Bremmer:
Yeah, of course. Yeah.
Katie Drummond:
Well look, I mean, I think that what happened at USAID is obviously a massive historic dismantling of an agency.
Ian Bremmer:
87% of the funds, the contracts have been shut down. The remaining 13% is going to be in the Department of State. That's the most significant thing that DOGE has done so far in your view?
Katie Drummond:
I mean that in terms of the global impact of Elon Musk and DOGE, I think it would be impossible for me to overstate how significant that is. And I think from everything that we've heard from people who work or worked at USAID or who were on the receiving end of this money, this funding from around the world, it's incredibly difficult to stand these programs back up once they've been stood down. Americans working abroad have flown home. They have been told to stop working. Contracts have been ended.
I mean this as much as the courts are now catching up and sort of ordering some of this work reinstated, maybe ordering some of this funding to be turned back on, it's not that easy. And I think that that's one of the tricks that we are seeing employed by DOGE and by Musk in this process is that they're moving incredibly quickly. Sure the courts are catching up. But by the time they've caught up, there has already been so much damage done. So when I think about the extent of the damage, I would certainly point at that agency.
I think though that there are also significant undertakings, particularly when I think about Treasury, when I think about the Social Security Administration. We are talking about access to systems that control again, trillions of dollars in payments. We are talking about access to systems that include the names, the personal tax details, the addresses, the Social Security numbers of every single American and every single person who has ever applied for a Social Security number. So when we talk about impact and the biggest thing or the most significant thing that DOGE has done, over the next several months I think we will see the impact of that kind of access. We know that they have access to this data.
Ian Bremmer:
What might that mean, and what can one do with that?
Katie Drummond:
Well, I mean, we have certainly talked to experts who are speculating that in amassing access to all of this data on Americans and on non-citizens who have attempted to live and work in the United States, well think about what you could do if you were able to access all of that data, maybe apply AI and automation to examine that data, that you are then able to potentially do very damaging things with that information at the behest of the president, at the behest of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security.
I mean, when you juxtapose I think what we're seeing with deportations, what we're seeing with detentions at the border, we have been told that the risk of DOGE and Musk and Trump having this kind of access, this unmitigated, unfettered access, well, you could use that information in any kind of specific targeted way towards individuals whose politics you don't like, whose work you're not a fan of. Maybe who you want to audit, maybe you want to make their life particularly difficult. If you have DOGE operatives able to access and play around with that data and that information, that then opens you up to a whole new world of risk that I don't think even I have completely wrapped my mind around. Certainly that I don't think the American people have wrapped their minds around.
Now, obviously it depends the extent to which they are able to hold onto that access, the extent to which they are able to actually modify these systems. So there was a situation that played out with the Treasury that is still running through the courts where initially there were DOGE operatives, at least one, who had not only read access to the data. So not only could he see the Treasury payment data, he could actually go in and modify it. So he could say turn off a payment if he wanted to turn off a payment.
As far as we know that access has been revoked, but again as far as we know. You talked earlier a little bit about transparency, as far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been very much of it. So other than what journalists are learning about what DOGE is doing, we're not entirely sure what kind of access they do and don't have.
Ian Bremmer:
Do we have any view at this point, any educated view on intent? Because so much of this, it's not just about capabilities. You're talking about speculating what they might do given access to that data. I mean, you've been covering Elon Musk for a long time, initially involved in the first term Trump executive group, and then not, and then a Democrat engaged with Biden and then not. Do you have any view on Elon's intent in how it aligns with and perhaps is different from that of President Trump?
Katie Drummond:
I have two educated guesses on this, and I would say I cannot ascertain his intent unless I am inside of his brain. There's one that I think is more superficial, which is everything that we have seen from the way Elon Musk runs his companies, from the way he took over Twitter and turned it into X, that entire playbook now playing out within the federal government, he really does believe in stripping out cost. He believes in moving as quickly as possible. He really-
Ian Bremmer:
He fired people at Twitter immediately.
Katie Drummond:
Immediately.
Ian Bremmer:
In large numbers. Everyone said it was going to break, turned out it was fine, but nonetheless math.
Katie Drummond:
Relatively fine. You tell me if you think that's a better user experience than it used to be. We could debate about that.
Ian Bremmer:
We certainly can.
Katie Drummond:
The company still exists.
Ian Bremmer:
But it didn't fall apart, the point is.
Katie Drummond:
Didn't fall apart.
So fundamentally, I think that he thinks that he is taking that Silicon Valley Elon Musk playbook, applying it to the federal government. He genuinely thinks, and his intention is to do exactly what he says. Root out fraud, cut costs, eliminate waste, strip the federal workforce down exponentially, just take this thing down to the studs.
I think there is an additional layer on top of that that very much speaks to where the tech industry is right now, which is we have seen DOGE and Musk make a lot of efforts already to automate the federal workforce. So they're introducing AI tools at a very rapid clip into the GSA, for example, which operates a lot of IT systems, overseas government real estate, has all sorts of functions across federal agencies. They have now introduced a chatbot into the GSA. They've rolled it out to several thousand employees, and they absolutely intend to continue doing that across federal agencies with the goal being AI that can pull data from all sorts of different agencies, analyze it, find efficiencies, analyze procurement, analyze contracts, all of these things. So there is this strip it down to the studs, automate it. That is certainly one piece of the intent.
I think the other deeper and maybe more pernicious and interesting question to ask about Musk's intent, and this is something I've thought a lot about, is that he has absolutely taken this very hard right turn. He has adopted what I would describe as extremist far-right political views. I mean, we see it on his X account on a daily basis. And so I do think that when we talk about intent, I think it would be superficial of me to just say, "Well, he wants to strip the government to the studs and automate everything," because I do think there is this ideological underpinning to all of this where it seems like he really does want to see the United States and the world take a harder right turn with regards to things like diversity. All of his comments on DEI, with regards to transgender rights. That permeates so much of what he says publicly, and I would be surprised if we didn't see that play out through DOGE's efforts and Musk's efforts in the government.
Ian Bremmer:
So we've certainly seen in terms of his posts on X the accounts that he engages with and personally promotes, the support of that ideology. That's very clear. Have we any evidence at this point, that you can point to, that of actions that he or DOGE has taken that would say I see how this ideology is playing out in his direct influence in the government?
Katie Drummond:
At this point, and as far as I can recall, and let me caveat by saying it has been a wild few months, I cannot think of a specific example that I could point to. But I do think it's important to introduce that idea early because I would hate to be flatfooted in six months when all of a sudden we are seeing DOGE and Musk take actions that reflect that ideology within government and we weren't ready to anticipate it.
Ian Bremmer:
So mistrust but verify is what you're basically saying.
Katie Drummond:
Absolutely.
Ian Bremmer:
A lot of people, I am not one of them, believe that Trump and Musk, two huge egos aren't going to be able to get along for very long. Talk a little bit about the relationship as you have seen it between these two men that are spending an awful lot of time together.
Katie Drummond:
Awful lot of time together. Elon Musk's children, his son, I mean, have been photographed now several times with the president. I mean, they are one big happy family on Air Force One, from what we can tell. Everything I have seen, everything we know, they get along great. Trump seems to really like the guy. I can't say the same for people in Trump's inner circle from everyone we have talked to in and around the administration.
Ian Bremmer:
Well sure, because he's pushing him aside to a degree, right?
Katie Drummond:
That same fondness-
Ian Bremmer:
It's not easy if you're Marco.
Katie Drummond:
That same fondness is not shared. But I think that Trump sees in Musk someone, one, with a very large checkbook and a willingness to write many, many checks and bankroll Trump and the GOP indefinitely.
Ian Bremmer:
Not to mention a megaphone.
Katie Drummond:
Absolutely and a megaphone on social media. And from everything we can tell, he seems to think that Musk is a really smart, interesting guy.
Ian Bremmer:
So there's no reason to believe, and you're someone that's covering this very, very closely, that this relationship isn't for the duration. So let's think about technology, generally speaking. You saw an awful lot of technologists that were sitting on the dais behind Trump during the inauguration, many of whom were not people that would've been aligned with the President when he wasn't the President. A lot of money going through there right now. Zuckerberg very famously changing around a lot of the way they handle content, for example, post-Trump as opposed to before. What do you see as someone who runs WIRED, which is the most important magazine in this space, how's technology and technologists, how are they changing?
Katie Drummond:
Complicated. If I could give you a big picture answer, I think the big picture answer is reflected in these photos that we saw at the inauguration, which is how is the technology industry changing? Well, they are bending a knee, which is certainly a term we have heard many, many times in the last few months. But they are ready and willing to partner with the Trump administration. And I think beyond that, they are hoping that by welcoming Trump back to the presidency with open arms, with million dollar checks, with front row seats at his inauguration, that they will see a more hospitable environment for their industry under this administration than they did with Biden.
So I think that not only are they saying, "We're going to work with this administration," which sure, you run a massive technology company, you need to work with the federal government. You need to work with who's in office. But not only are they acknowledging that, I think they are going a step further in some cases and saying, "Well, but I'm also going to use this administration and the tools I have at my disposal to meet my own end goal."
So I think Sam Altman is a really good example of this. Sam Altman is I think a notoriously, intelligent is maybe the wrong word, strategic and perhaps manipulative leader of a technology company. I think this has been reported many, many times before. He knows how to work a room. He knows how to play to get what he wants. He was very receptive to a Trump administration on social media. He wrote a check for a million dollars for the President's inauguration. He attended the event. And I think, what, a day later, two days later, he's standing with Donald Trump announcing a massive infrastructure plan to build out AI data centers across the United States. So-
Ian Bremmer:
Which Elon, by the way, said, "Eh, it's all vaporware."
Katie Drummond:
They don't have the money. I mean, I think that they have the money. But Sam Altman is similar to Mark Zuckerberg, I think very willing to sort of turn the screws and play the game to facilitate their financial success.
I think when you look at other executives in this space, if you look at Tim Cook, I mean I think he's a really good example, every big technology company is flawed. I think Apple has a lot to champion in certain spaces. I think that they try to be a force for good in the world. I think there is a lot about their policies that I really like. I think Tim Cook is a very thoughtful leader. Obviously a gay CEO of a major technology company. The photos that I saw of him at the inauguration, I mean, he looked mortified.
So when I think about an Apple compared to a Meta or an OpenAI, to me it feels like Apple is maybe more on the side of, "We need to play nice. We need to work with this administration." Whereas I think that someone like an Altman or a Zuckerberg are taking a much more opportunistic approach to this administration.
So I think we are seeing it play out across a spectrum. I don't want to lump all of big tech into one category, but we are absolutely seeing a very different version of these companies and these leaders than we did in 2016.
I think there's an example that I come back to a lot because I thought it was such a pointed example of Airbnb, Brian Chesky, CEO of that company. I remember during the first Trump administration, they took a very hard line around Trump's comments regarding immigrants, people from garbage countries, I mean, all of this just awful rhetoric. They designed an entire advertising campaign based on those comments. Brian Chesky himself came out and said, "The president is on the wrong side of history." I mean, they were very forceful.
Ian Bremmer:
It's inconceivable he'd do that right now, right?
Katie Drummond:
Shocking. I mean, we at WIRED, I will tell you-
Ian Bremmer:
That's correct, right?
Katie Drummond:
Absolutely. Oh, it's not going to happen. And we are told repeatedly in our reporting when we reach out to these companies they don't want to talk about politics. Don't ask. No comment. We have nothing to say. I mean, there are very few technology executives right now who are even willing to open their mouths about what is going on in the Trump administration.
Ian Bremmer:
So that makes me want to ask you about you, and I mean WIRED broadly. Not just you, but you as a person too, which is that in the first Trump administration WIRED was frankly much less political. It was much more still the place where you go to learn about all things technology, technology and geopolitics. Technology and politics have obviously come together in a much more impactful and strategically important way.
But nonetheless, I mean, as I see the investigative journalism that you and your writers are leading, as I look at the stories that you are uncovering and writing about, it's obviously in many cases, quite oppositional. And I wonder what kind of pushback you are feeling, how that is changing your mission to the extent that you feel like there are some stories that are actually really too hot for you to engage in because it would risk blowback either from advertisers or directly for your ability to continue to function.
Katie Drummond:
Sure.
Ian Bremmer:
How do you think about that?
Katie Drummond:
I think about it in a very specific and I think a limited way. So certainly you're right that politics and technology are more closely intertwined than they ever have been. That's why we stood up a politics team before the election last year, and I have been very pleased with the work that that team has done. They're fantastic and they are continuing, of course, to lead the charge on coverage of the administration and DOGE.
I think about journalism maybe in too simple of a way that this is our job. It is my job and my journalist's job to give the public factual information that we believe to be newsworthy and in the public interest. That is the job, and we get up every day and we do the job. And I don't ever think about whether a story is too hot to do or whether we shouldn't do something. If we have the information and it's verified and it's fact-checked and it's legally reviewed, we would publish it.
I mean, I just I don't think about it in that way, and I'm not trying to pretend to be some outrageously courageous person, but this is what I signed up for. This is what I do. And I would also say, and not to give Condé Nast the biggest shout out of all time here, but I am very lucky to work at a company where from my boss, to her boss, to our owners, to our lawyers, to our revenue teams, there has been nothing but unbridled support for this journalism, and they see it at face value for what it is. It's good, rigorous, factual journalism, and that's what we are in the business of doing.
So do I worry about the safety of my journalists? Do I worry about my safety, my family's safety, our wellbeing, whether in a physical context or a legal context? I worry about that all the time. But again, that's what I signed up for.
Ian Bremmer:
I want to talk about the environment where you do that work, the stakes are higher. There are clearly very powerful people that would rather you not be doing that work. And so I'm wondering about the kinds of pressure that you and your journalists actually feel to the extent that you, because clearly this is not a absolutely free press. No problem. Do whatever you want. This is much more disinformation. It's much more politicized platforms, and it's much more people in power that are willing to go after folks that they think are not acting in a patriotic fashion. So talk to me about what kind of specific pressure that you and others in WIRED have faced given the job that you are doing.
Katie Drummond:
I mean, the only pressure I feel is pressure to make sure our journalists understand the risks that they are taking, and that they understand that there are certain protections that we can offer them, that I can offer them, that the company can offer them, and there are certain protections that we can't. I can't ensure that when someone goes on a trip internationally and comes back over the border that that will be easy passage for them anymore. I can't do that.
What can I do? I can make sure that they know who to call in the event of an incident. I can make sure they know what to do with their phone and their computer before they take a trip. We can shore up their safety, but I feel a tremendous amount of pressure to protect them.
I will be very honest with you that I think that the biggest pressure they feel, and I genuinely mean this, is to be responsive and respectful to the sources that they have developed in these agencies. I think that from every conversation I've had with them, and I don't want to speak for them, but I'm here doing that, they feel a tremendous amount of pressure to handle this information and these stories with care and sensitivity and empathy and to be responsive to these people who are numbering in the dozen. I mean, we hear from a lot of people who are going through a terrible thing. They are losing their jobs, worried about losing their jobs, unable to carry on scientific research, unable to function in their day-to-day. So our journalists feel tremendous pressure to be responsive to that and to be in touch with all of these people all the time. And I think that that takes a toll while they're also worrying about their own safety and their family's safety.
Ian Bremmer:
So no additional threats of companies pulling advertising since the administration come in, no additional threats of lawsuits against you as a magazine? That actually that environment for you has not changed.
Katie Drummond:
Has not changed.
Ian Bremmer:
That's super important because for all of those in the media that are saying this is a chilling environment, and look at what Bezos is now doing, look at what the LA Times is now doing. What I hear from WIRED a couple months into the administration is actually we're doing some of the most heated stuff and we feel like we're completely independent journalists in media, and we felt no pressure from the Trump administration.
Katie Drummond:
We are completely independent journalists in media. We do our jobs every day. We have felt no pressure from the Trump administration. I think the only pressure we feel is self-imposed. Call me again in a month. I mean, we are very early in this administration. I think we are eyes wide open about potential risks and we spend a lot of time talking about potential risks. We want to be prepared for any situation that might arise. But as of this moment, I'm going to finish this interview, I'm going to go top edit a story and we're going to publish it. I mean, that's what we're going to do today.
Ian Bremmer:
Katie Drummond, that thanks for joining us today.
Katie Drummond:
Thank you for having me.
Ian Bremmer:
That's it for today's edition of the GZERO World Podcast. Do you like what you heard? Of course, you do. Why not make it official? Why don't you rate and review GZERO World five stars, only five stars, otherwise don't do it, on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts? Tell your friends.
