Govern by tweetPresident-elect Donald Trump’s administration announced Tuesday evening that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will co-lead a new Department of Government Effectiveness, where they will “dismantle government bureaucracy, reduce excessive regulations, cut wasteful spending, and restructure agencies federal”. This seems like a big responsibility for two men that no one elected. It also seems a bit fishy to name Musk, a man whose wealth is massively dependent on the government. contracts and others federal supporthas a role of influence on spending.

Gizmodo interviewed Jordan Libowitz, vice president of communications for the nonpartisan nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, about the ethical obligations Musk and Ramaswamy might have in their new roles.

This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Gizmodo: We don’t know much about this new Department of Government Effectiveness. But based on Trump’s announcement, is it likely that Musk or Ramaswamy will need any congressional approval to lead the project?

Jordan Libowitz: We don’t really know what this new organism is. They use the term department, but it is unlikely that it is actually a department. Departments are created by Congress and Congress did not create a new department here. So it’s unlikely to be something that goes through a Senate confirmation process.

What this is about actually affects the obligations that Musk and Ramaswamy would have in terms of conflict of interest laws and so on. We don’t know where he sits within the government, but it appears to be something that would be purely a presidential appointment, closer to a blue ribbon commission or study group, not like the ministry of Homeland Security.

Gizmodo: If it’s more of an advisory body, what kind of financial disclosures and conflicts of interest might Musk need to make?

Libowitz: There are several possibilities. The first question is whether they will be considered special government employees, who are subject to conflict of interest laws. It depends on how they will interact with government employees. Will they direct government employees in some way? Will they be seen as speaking for Trump and his administration? What are their missions?

Depending on these, they would be subject to conflict of interest laws. They would have to file financial statements. Section 208, the Criminal Conflict of Interest Act, would sort of tighten up what they can do. When you have 208 concerns, you’re either talking about a question of recusal or divestiture. They can either say, I’m not going to do anything that has anything to do with social media companies, or space, or the auto industry, or whatever else they have assets tied to, or they could divest these assets before getting into the process.

What we heard is (Trump) uses the term advisor, right? They will advise the government. It will therefore also be a question of knowing whether this falls under the law on the federal advisory committee. If this is considered a FACA group, they are going to have to be more transparent. If they are not a FACA group, there is a good chance they will fall under the auspices of lobbying and be required to make lobbying disclosures.

Gizmodo: If it turns out that Musk and Ramaswamy are not considered special government employees or fall under the FACA, does that mean they won’t have much power or influence over government operations?

Libowitz: You know, influence is a funny thing. There are many ways to get it. Donald Trump and his previous administration, or infamous had, three members of Mar-a-Lago just called to give advice to the departments—it was the (Department of Veterans Affairs), they were giving advice on how to do things—and no one in the government knew who these people were.

Anyone close to the president, if he so chooses, can appear to have great influence over the government. But the more concrete steps they take, the more likely it is to be lobbying.

Gizmodo: If Musk does indeed have to file a financial statement, what might we learn from it?

Libowitz: It’s basically assets and debts, a breakdown of all their assets, usually within certain ranges.-for Musk, I’m guessing a lot of them are going to be in the $50+ million range—but also where they have money and what rates they are at.

There is currently a lot of debate about the valuation of X, formerly Twitter. From what we’ve seen of bank write-offs, it’s a lot less than it was a year or two ago. (Musk) should divest its ownership and value, which would provide a much more transparent view of the company’s value.

We might also find out where Musk’s money is outside of the three big companies (X, Tesla, and SpaceX) he owns.—because he owns a lot of businesses. Where else is it invested?

The whole point of this is so that the public and the government can see…are there any potential conflicts of interest on the part of members of the government? If he filled out a personal financial disclosure form, we would see a lot more detail about what he owns, what his valuation is, where his debts are and his liquidity.

Gizmodo: Do ​​you want to speculate on how this will play out and what ethical rules Musk will have to follow?

Libowitz: I have no earthly idea. This can range from leading a shadow government to simply being backed into a corner. We just don’t have enough details on what it actually is. I think only time will tell how influential he is.

The government is moving slowly. There are only so many reforms you can undertake in two years, and many things have to go through Congress. Congress is many things, but speed is not one of them.

But when it comes to contractors, between NASA, the Department of Defense and SpaceX, that’s where a potential conflict of interest is probably most likely to arise.