Inside Elon Musk's DOGE: A Fired Staffer Reveals Who Was Really in Charge

The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE as it came to be known, emerged as a peculiar and often controversial initiative within the Trump administration, spearheaded by tech mogul Elon Musk. Pitched as a rapid-response team designed to streamline government operations and cut waste, DOGE attracted a mix of seasoned Musk loyalists and young, ambitious engineers. Yet, its brief existence has been shrouded in opacity, raising questions about its true purpose, methods, and leadership structure. As reports surface of Musk and his key lieutenants potentially stepping back, a former staffer has offered a rare glimpse behind the curtain, detailing his experiences and shedding light on who held the reins within this enigmatic group.

Sahil Lavingia, the CEO of Gumroad and a figure WIRED previously identified as a DOGE member assigned to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), recently shared his account after his 55-day tenure ended with his firing. His reflections, published on his personal website and elaborated upon in conversations with WIRED, paint a picture of an operation that was, at least from his vantage point, less a well-oiled machine and more a collection of disparate efforts lacking central coordination or clear information flow between teams.

Lavingia's experience at the VA involved projects aimed at reviewing contracts for potential cancellation, a task he says was prioritized by the group's leadership. But beyond the specific assignments, his observations speak to a broader organizational challenge within DOGE. He described the operations as “disorganized,” a stark contrast to the image of hyper-efficient innovation one might associate with Musk's other ventures.

This perceived lack of structure and inter-team communication raises fundamental questions about how DOGE intended to achieve its ambitious goals of transforming government efficiency. Was the disorganization a feature of its rapid deployment, or a symptom of a deeper issue? Lavingia's account suggests that while individuals were assigned tasks, the overarching strategy and coordination remained largely opaque to those on the ground.

The Unclear Chain of Command: Who Was Really Leading DOGE?

One of the most significant revelations from Lavingia's perspective concerns the actual leadership structure within DOGE. While Elon Musk was the public face and driving force behind the initiative, Lavingia contends that the day-to-day direction and operational control rested primarily with Steve Davis. Davis, a long-time confidant and collaborator of Musk, known for his roles at X (formerly Twitter) and as CEO of The Boring Company, appeared to be the central node connecting the various DOGE teams scattered across different government agencies.

“Steven was the only person who was across everything,” Lavingia told WIRED, emphasizing Davis's pivotal role in disseminating priorities and checking in on progress. This suggests that while Musk provided the vision and political capital, Davis was the chief operator, translating that vision into actionable tasks for the deployed teams.

Lavingia also identified two other key figures who appeared to be part of the inner circle directing DOGE activities: Anthony Armstrong and Baris Akis. Armstrong, who advised Musk during his acquisition of Twitter, reportedly focused his efforts at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), an agency targeted early on by DOGE. Akis, co-founder of venture capital firm Human Capital and another long-time Musk associate, was, according to Lavingia, instrumental in his own recruitment into DOGE, messaging him directly and connecting him with the team lead at the VA.

These three men — Davis, Armstrong, and Akis — were present at a meeting Lavingia attended with Musk, referred to as an “E meeting,” where they appeared to be the ones directing the activities of the other DOGE workers. Lavingia described Davis's role as akin to a “chief of staff or body man” when Musk was present, further underscoring his central position.

The prominence of Akis, however, adds another layer of complexity and controversy. Akis is not a US citizen but holds a green card. Reports from other outlets noted that Trump advisers had initially blocked Musk from hiring Akis into DOGE due to regulations generally prohibiting non-Americans from government employment. Despite this, Lavingia's account indicates Akis was actively involved in recruitment and deployment, raising questions about the nature of his role and how it navigated these legal restrictions. US legal regulations regarding the employment of non-citizens in government roles are typically stringent, requiring specific authorizations or exceptions.

Another Musk ally, Antonio Gracias, also appeared to confirm Akis's involvement during a public appearance, stating that “Baris and Emily do the recruiting” for DOGE, as noted in the WIRED article. While the identity of “Emily” remains unclear, Gracias's comment further solidifies Akis's role in bringing people into the DOGE fold.

Communication and Controversy: The Use of Signal

A recurring theme in Lavingia's experience, and one that has drawn scrutiny from experts and lawmakers, is the primary method of communication within DOGE: the encrypted messaging app Signal. Lavingia told WIRED that correspondence, particularly from Steve Davis, often occurred via Signal. Davis would message priorities and check in on work, though Lavingia noted that replies from Davis were infrequent.

The reliance on encrypted, ephemeral messaging platforms like Signal for official government business has been a significant point of concern. Critics argue that this practice could violate federal record-keeping laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability by preserving official communications. The potential for sensitive discussions and decisions to bypass official channels and disappear raises alarms about oversight and historical documentation.

The WIRED article references a notable incident where a senior official in the Trump administration accidentally added a journalist to a Signal group chat discussing sensitive military actions. This event highlighted the risks associated with using such platforms for government communications, underscoring the potential for security breaches and the circumvention of official record-keeping requirements. The use of Signal within DOGE, as described by Lavingia, suggests this was not an isolated practice but potentially a standard mode of operation for the group's leadership.

This communication method stands in stark contrast to the standard protocols within government agencies, which typically require the use of official email systems and other documented channels precisely to maintain a verifiable record of communications for legal, historical, and oversight purposes. The choice to use Signal raises questions about whether DOGE intended to operate outside these norms and the implications for transparency.

DOGE's Modus Operandi: Efficiency or 'Fall Guy'?

Lavingia's blog post offers a critical perspective on DOGE's actual influence and purpose. He wrote that DOGE “had no direct authority” and that “The real decisions came from the agency heads appointed by President Trump.” In his view, DOGE served a different, perhaps more politically expedient, function: acting as the “'fall guy' for unpopular decisions.”

This interpretation suggests that DOGE's role might have been less about fundamentally restructuring government operations through innovative methods and more about providing a convenient shield for politically sensitive actions, such as significant contract cancellations or personnel changes. By attributing such decisions to an external, efficiency-focused group led by a high-profile figure like Musk, the administration could potentially deflect criticism from the appointed agency heads.

If this assessment is accurate, it reframes the narrative around DOGE from a genuine attempt at bureaucratic reform to a political tool. The young engineers and professionals who joined DOGE, drawn perhaps by the promise of impactful work alongside tech luminaries, might have unknowingly become part of a strategy primarily focused on political optics rather than deep systemic change.

Lavingia's work at the VA, focusing on contract review, aligns with this interpretation. Identifying contracts for cancellation could be seen as an efficiency measure, but also as a way to quickly implement cost-cutting directives that might otherwise face internal resistance or public scrutiny if initiated solely by the agency itself. The rapid pace and lack of cross-team information sharing Lavingia observed could also be consistent with a group focused on executing specific, directed tasks rather than building a cohesive, long-term strategy for government-wide efficiency.

Key Players and Their Roles Beyond the Core Three

While Davis, Armstrong, and Akis appeared to be the primary operational leaders, other individuals connected to Musk also played roles within or alongside DOGE.

• Nicole Hollander: Davis's partner and another close Musk associate, Hollander also reportedly joined the DOGE effort, working at the General Services Administration (GSA). Like Davis, she was involved in the intense period following Musk's acquisition of Twitter, helping with significant personnel changes. Her involvement in DOGE at GSA suggests a focus on administrative and logistical aspects of government operations. Hollander is also reported to be departing DOGE alongside Musk and Davis.
• Antonio Gracias: A known Musk ally and investor, Gracias's mention of Akis's recruiting role indicates his proximity to the DOGE initiative, even if his direct operational involvement is less clear. His public comments provide external confirmation of some internal DOGE activities.
• Akash Bobba: A young engineer recruited into DOGE, Bobba was reportedly the subject of efforts led by Davis to gain access to sensitive data at the Social Security Administration (SSA). This detail, highlighted in previous WIRED reporting, points to DOGE's interest in leveraging data, potentially for AI or efficiency analysis, but also raises privacy and security concerns depending on the nature of the data and the access granted. Davis's instrumental role in pressing for this access further underscores his operational leadership.

The composition of DOGE, bringing together individuals from Musk's various companies (SpaceX, Boring Company, X/Twitter, Neuralink) and his broader network, reflects a pattern seen in how Musk approaches new ventures — relying on a trusted inner circle. However, applying this model to the complex and regulated environment of the US government introduced unique challenges and controversies, from navigating hiring regulations for non-citizens to adhering to government communication and record-keeping standards.

The Recruitment Effort and the 'DOGE Orthogonal' Path

Even before the Trump administration took office, Steve Davis was reportedly leading the recruitment efforts for DOGE, then operating out of SpaceX's DC offices. This early recruitment drive aimed to bring in talent, particularly engineers, into the government fold under the DOGE banner. The Bloomberg article linked in the source describes Davis as Musk's “go-to cost-cutter” and highlights his role in this recruitment.

The profile of those recruited varied, from seasoned professionals like Lavingia to young engineers. One such young engineer, recruited by Davis, is now reportedly running a “DOGE orthogonal” AI startup, according to previous WIRED reporting. This suggests that the DOGE experience, while perhaps short-lived for many, may have influenced participants' subsequent career paths, potentially steering them towards applying technology and efficiency principles in different contexts, even outside direct government service.

The recruitment process itself, as described by Lavingia involving direct messaging from figures like Akis, appears to have been informal, bypassing traditional government hiring channels. While Musk and Davis held Special Government Employee (SGE) status, allowing them to work in government for a limited period (up to 130 days), the status of other DOGE members and the specifics of their onboarding process remain less clear. The SGE status is intended for temporary assignments where outside expertise is needed, but its application to a broad initiative like DOGE, bringing in numerous individuals for varied roles across agencies, was notable.

The Future of DOGE: Uncertainty Looms

With Elon Musk publicly stating his intention to step back from his DOGE duties and reports indicating the departure of key figures like Steve Davis and Nicole Hollander, the future of the Department of Government Efficiency appears highly uncertain. These individuals were not just figureheads; according to Lavingia's account, they were the operational core, directing activities and maintaining what little coherence existed across the different agency teams.

Without Davis at the helm, Lavingia says he has “no idea” what direction DOGE will take. The departure of the primary operational leader leaves a significant vacuum. Who, if anyone, will step in to fill that role? Will the remaining DOGE members continue their work, or will the initiative effectively dissolve?

Lavingia's prediction is that the young engineers who followed Musk and Davis into government will likely “leave soon too.” This suggests that the motivation for many to join DOGE was tied directly to the opportunity to work under the guidance of Musk and his trusted lieutenants. If that leadership departs, the impetus for the remaining staff to stay may diminish significantly.

The potential dissolution or significant scaling back of DOGE raises questions about the legacy of this unique government experiment. Did it achieve any lasting efficiencies or reforms? Or was it a temporary disruption, more notable for the controversies it generated than for its tangible impact on government operations?

The use of non-traditional communication methods, the involvement of non-citizens in potentially sensitive roles, the lack of transparency, and the perception of serving as a political “fall guy” are all elements that contributed to the controversial nature of DOGE. As the initiative potentially winds down, a full accounting of its activities, expenditures, and outcomes will be necessary to understand its true impact and draw lessons for future attempts at rapid government innovation.

Lavingia's decision to speak out, despite being fired, provides valuable insight into the internal workings of a group that largely operated away from public scrutiny. His account, corroborated in part by other reporting, helps to demystify some aspects of DOGE, particularly concerning its operational leadership and communication practices. It underscores the challenges of integrating external, fast-moving teams into the established structures and regulations of the federal government.

The story of DOGE, as told through the eyes of a former staffer like Sahil Lavingia, is a complex narrative involving ambitious goals, powerful personalities, unconventional methods, and significant controversy. It serves as a case study in the intersection of technology leadership, political power, and the enduring challenges of government reform. As the key figures depart, the full story of DOGE's impact, and the lessons to be learned from its brief, intense existence, are yet to be fully written.

The questions raised by Lavingia's experience — about leadership, communication, purpose, and accountability — will likely continue to be debated as observers attempt to piece together the full history of the Department of Government Efficiency under Elon Musk.