Elon Musk and Dogecoin Accused of "Weaponizing" U.S. Digital Service

Elon Musk and Dogecoin (DOGE) have been accused of "weaponizing" the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) and betraying its mission, according to insiders. The USDS, established in 2014, is a federal agency designed to improve government digital services and enhance the public's experience with online government platforms.

Musk, the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, has been a vocal supporter of DOGE, a cryptocurrency that started as a joke but has since gained significant traction. In recent months, Musk has used his influence to promote DOGE, including tweeting about it and even accepting it as a form of payment for Tesla merchandise.

However, some insiders within the USDS allege that Musk and DOGE have exploited the agency's resources and influence to further their own interests. They claim that the USDS has been used to promote DOGE and Musk's other ventures, rather than focusing on its core mission of improving government digital services.

One insider, who wished to remain anonymous, told Fortune that "Musk and DOGE have essentially weaponized the USDS, using it as a tool to advance their own agendas. This is a betrayal of the mission and values of the agency, which is supposed to be non-partisan and focused on serving the public interest."

The USDS has faced criticism in the past for its perceived lack of independence and its close ties to the White House. However, the allegations of Musk and DOGE's influence over the agency are a new development and have raised concerns about the potential for private interests to undermine the agency's mission.

Musk and DOGE have not yet responded to the allegations. However, Musk has previously defended his support for DOGE, arguing that it is a more democratic and accessible form of currency than traditional fiat currencies.

The future of the USDS and its relationship with Musk and DOGE remains uncertain. However, the allegations of "weaponization" have raised important questions about the role of private interests in shaping government policy and the potential for conflicts of interest to undermine the public good.