Allison Stanger, Middlebury

Elon Musk’s role as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, is on the surface a dramatic effort to overhaul the inefficiencies of federal bureaucracy. But beneath the rhetoric of cost-cutting and regulatory streamlining lies a troubling scenario.

Musk has been appointed what is called a “special government employee” in charge of the White House office formerly known as the U.S. Digital Service, which was renamed the U.S. DOGE Service on the first day of President Donald Trump’s second term. The Musk team’s purported goals are to maximize efficiency and to eliminate waste and redundancy.

That might sound like a bold move toward Silicon Valley-style innovation in governance. However, the deeper motivations driving Musk’s involvement are unlikely to be purely altruistic.

Musk has an enormous corporate empire, ambitions in artificial intelligence, desire for financial power and a long-standing disdain for government oversight. His access to sensitive government systems and ability to restructure agencies, with the opaque decision-making guiding DOGE to date, have positioned Musk to extract unprecedented financial and strategic benefits for both himself and his companies, which include the electric car company Tesla and space transport company SpaceX.

One historical parallel in particular is striking. In 1600, the British East India Company, a merchant shipping firm, began with exclusive rights to conduct trade in the Indian Ocean region before slowly acquiring quasi-governmental powers and ultimately ruling with an iron fist over British colonies in Asia, including most of what is now India. In 1677, the company gained the right to mint currency on behalf of the British crown.

As I explain in my upcoming book “Who Elected Big Tech?” the U.S. is witnessing a similar pattern of a private company taking over government operations.

Yet what took centuries in the colonial era is now unfolding at lightning speed in mere days through digital means. In the 21st century, data access and digital financial systems have replaced physical trading posts and private armies. Communications are the key to power now, rather than brute strength.

The data pipeline

Viewing Musk’s moves as a power grab becomes clearer when examining his corporate empire. He controls multiple companies that have federal contracts and are subject to government regulations. SpaceX and Tesla, as well as tunneling firm The Boring Company, the brain science company Neuralink, and artificial intelligence firm xAI all operate in markets where government oversight can make or break fortunes.

In his new role, Musk can oversee – and potentially dismantle – the government agencies that have traditionally constrained his businesses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has repeatedly investigated Tesla’s Autopilot system; the Securities and Exchange Commission has penalized Musk for market-moving tweets; environmental regulations have constrained SpaceX.

Through DOGE, all these oversight mechanisms could be weakened or eliminated under the guise of efficiency.

But the most catastrophic aspect of Musk’s leadership at DOGE is its unprecedented access to government data. DOGE employees reportedly have digital permission to see data in the U.S. government’s payment system, which includes bank account information, Social Security numbers and income tax documents. Reportedly, they have also seized the ability to alter the system’s software, data, transactions and records.

Multiple media reports indicate that Musk’s staff have already made changes to the programs that process payments for Social Security beneficiaries and government contractors to make it easier to block payments and hide records of payments blocked, made or altered.

But DOGE employees only need to be able to read the data to make copies of Americans’ most sensitive personal information.

A federal court has ordered that not to happen – at least for now. Even so, funneling the data into Grok, Musk’s xAI-created artificial intelligence system, which is already connected with the Musk-owned X, formerly known as Twitter, would create an unparalleled capability for predicting economic shifts, identifying government vulnerabilities and modeling voter behavior.

That’s an enormous and alarming amount of information and power for any one person to have.

Cryptocurrency coup?

Like Trump himself and many of his closest advisers, Musk is also deeply involved in cryptocurrency. The parallel emergence of Trump’s own cryptocurrency and DOGE’s apparent alignment with the cryptocurrency known as Dogecoin suggests more than coincidence. I believe it points to a coordinated strategy for control of America’s money and economic policy, effectively placing the United States in entirely private hands.

The genius – and danger – of this strategy lies in the fact that each step might appear justified in isolation: modernizing government systems, improving efficiency, updating payment infrastructure. But together, they create the scaffolding for transferring even more financial power to the already wealthy.

Musk’s authoritarian tendencies, evident in his forceful management of X and his assertion that it was illegal to publish the names of people who work for him, suggest how he might wield his new powers. Companies critical of Musk could face unexpected audits; regulatory agencies scrutinizing his businesses could find their budgets slashed; allies could receive privileged access to government contracts.

This isn’t speculation – it’s the logical extension of DOGE’s authority combined with Musk’s demonstrated behavior.

Critics are calling Musk’s actions at DOGE a massive corporate coup. Others are simply calling it a coup. The protest movement is gaining momentum in Washington, D.C., and around the country, but it’s unlikely that street protests alone can stop what Musk is doing.

Who can effectively investigate a group designed to dismantle oversight itself? The administration’s illegal firing of at least a dozen inspectors general before the Musk operation began suggests a deliberate strategy to eliminate government accountability. The Republican-led Congress, closely aligned with Trump, may not want to step in; but even if it did, Musk is moving far faster than Congress ever does.

Destroy the republic, build a startup nation?

Taken together, all of Musk’s and Trump’s moves lay the foundation for what cryptocurrency investor and entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan calls “the network state.”

The idea is that a virtual nation may form online before establishing any physical presence. Think of the network state like a tech startup company with its own cryptocurrency – instead of declaring independence and fighting for sovereignty, it first builds community and digital systems. By the time a Musk-aligned cryptocurrency gained official status, the underlying structure and relationships would already be in place, making alternatives impractical.

Converting more of the world’s financial system into privately controlled cryptocurrencies would take power away from national governments, which must answer to their own people. Musk has already begun this effort, using his wealth and social media reach to engage in politics not only in the U.S. but also several European countries, including Germany.

A nation governed by a cryptocurrency-based system would no longer be run by the people living in its territory but by those who could could afford to buy the digital currency. In this scenario, I am concerned that Musk, or the Communist Party of China, Russian President Vladimir Putin or AI-surveillance conglomerate Palantir, could render irrelevant Congress’ power over government spending and action. And along the way, it could remove the power to hold presidents accountable from Congress, the judiciary and American citizens.

All of this obviously presents a thicket of conflict-of-interest problems that are wholly unprecedented in scope and scale.

The question facing Americans, therefore, isn’t whether government needs modernization – it’s whether they’re willing to sacrifice democracy in pursuit of Musk’s version of efficiency. When we grant tech leaders direct control over government functions, we’re not just streamlining bureaucracy – we’re fundamentally altering the relationship between private power and public governance. I believe we’re undermining American national security, as well as the power of We, the People.

The most dangerous inefficiency of all may be Americans’ delayed response to this crisis.

Allison Stanger, Distinguished Endowed Professor, Middlebury

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Mary J. Scourboutakos, University of Toronto

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is expected to clear the final hurdles in his confirmation as President Donald Trump’s health secretary, and a host of health influencers have proclaimed that widely used cooking oils such as canola oil and soybean oil are toxic.

T-shirts sold by his “Make America Healthy Again” campaign now include the slogan, “make frying oil tallow again” – a reference to the traditional use of rendered beef fat for cooking.

Seed oils have become a mainstay of the American diet because unlike beef tallow, which is comprised of saturated fats that increase cholesterol levels, seed oils contain unsaturated fats that can decrease cholesterol levels. In theory, that means they should reduce the risk of heart disease.

But research shows that different seed oils have varying effects on risk for heart disease.
Furthermore, seed oils have also been shown to increase risk for migraines. This is likely due to their high levels of omega-6 fatty acids. These fats can increase inflammation, a heightened and potentially harmful state of immune system activation.

As a family physician with a Ph.D. in nutrition, I translate the latest nutrition science into dietary recommendations for my patients. When it comes to seed oils, the research shows that their health effects are more nuanced than headlines and social media posts suggest.

How seed oils infiltrated the American diet

Seed oils — often confusingly referred to as “vegetable oils” — are, as the name implies, oils extracted from the seeds of plants. This is unlike olive oil and coconut oil, which are derived from fruits. People decrying their widespread use often refer to the “hateful eight” top seed oil offenders: canola, corn, soybean, cottonseed, grapeseed, sunflower, safflower and rice bran oil.

These oils entered the human diet at unprecedented levels after the invention of the mechanical screw press in 1888 enabled the extraction of oil from seeds in quantities that were never before possible.

Between 1909 and 1999, U.S. consumption of soybean oil increased 1,000 times. This shift fundamentally changed our biological makeup. Due to increased seed oil intake, in the past 50 years the concentration of omega-6 fatty acids that Americans carry around in their fatty tissue has increased by 136%

Evaluating the omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio

Omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are essential nutrients that control inflammation. While omega-6s tend to produce molecules that boost it, omega-3s tend to produce molecules that tone it down. Until recently, people generally ate equal amounts of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. However, over the past century, this ratio has changed. Today, people consume 15 times more omega-6s than omega-3s, partly due to increased consumption of seed oils.

In theory, seed oils can cause health problems because they contain a high absolute amount of omega-6 fatty acids, as well as a high omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. Studies have linked an increased omega-6 to omega-3 ratio to a wide range of conditions, including mood disorders, knee pain, back pain, menstrual pain and even preterm birth. Omega-6 fatty acids have also been implicated in the processes that drive colon cancer.

However, the absolute omega-6 level and the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in different seed oils vary tremendously. For example, safflower oil and sunflower oil have ratios of 125:1 and 91:1. Corn oil’s ratio is 50:1. Meanwhile, soybean oil and canola oil have lower ratios, at 8:1 and 2:1, respectively.

Scientists have used genetic modification to create seed oils like high oleic acid canola oil that have a lower omega-6 to 3 ratio. However, the health benefit of these bioengineered oils is still being studied.

The upshot on inflammation and health risks

Part of the controversy surrounding seed oils is that studies investigating their inflammatory effect have yielded mixed results. One meta-analysis synthesizing the effects of seed oils on 11 inflammatory markers largely showed no effects – with the exception of one inflammatory signal, which was significantly elevated in people with the highest omega-6 intakes.

To complicate things further, genetics also plays a role in seed oils’ inflammatory potential. People of African, Indigenous and Latino descent tend to metabolize omega-6 fatty acids faster, which can increase the inflammatory effect of consuming seed oils. Scientists still don’t fully understand how genetics and other factors may influence the health effects of these oils.

The effect of different seed oils on cardiovascular risk

A review of seven randomized controlled trials showed that the effect of seed oils on risk of heart attacks varies depending on the type of seed oil.

This was corroborated by data resurrected from tapes dug up in the basement of a researcher who in the 1970s conducted the largest and most rigorously executed dietary trial to date investigating the replacement of saturated fat with seed oils. In that work, replacing saturated fats such as beef tallow with seed oils always lowers cholesterol, but it does not always lower risk of death from heart disease.

Taken together, these studies show that when saturated fats such as beef tallow are replaced with seed oils that have lower omega-6 to omega-3 ratios, such as soybean oil, the risk of heart attacks and death from heart disease falls. However, when saturated fats are replaced with seed oils with a higher omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, such as corn oil, risk of death from heart disease rises.

Interestingly, the most highly purchased seed oil in the United States is soybean oil, which has a more favorable omega-6 to 3 ratio of 8:1 – and studies show that it does lower the risk of heart disease.

However, seed oils with less favorable ratios, such as corn oil and safflower oil, can be found in countless processed foods, including potato chips, frozen dinners and packaged desserts. Nevertheless, other aspects of these foods, in addition to their seed oil content, also make them unhealthy.

The case for migraines – and beyond

A rigorous randomized controlled trial – the gold standard for clinical evidence – showed that diets high in omega-3 fatty acids and low in omega-6 fatty acids, hence low in seed oils, significantly reduced the risk of migraines

In the study, people who stepped up their consumption of omega-3 fatty acids by eating fatty fish such as salmon experienced an average of two fewer migraines per month than usual, even if they did not change their omega-6 consumption. However, if they reduced their omega-6 intake by switching out corn oil for olive oil, while simultaneously increasing their omega-3 intake, they experienced four fewer migraines per month.

That’s a noteworthy difference, considering that the latest migraine medications reduce migraine frequency by approximately two days per month, compared to a placebo. Thus, for migraine sufferers — 1 in 6 Americans — decreasing seed oils, along with increasing omega-3 intake, may be even more effective than currently available medications.

Overall, the drastic way in which omega-6 fatty acids have entered the food supply and fundamentally changed our biological composition makes this an important area of study. But the question of whether seed oils are good or bad is not black and white. There is no basis to conclude that Americans would be healthier if we started frying everything in beef tallow again, but there is an argument for a more careful consideration of the nuance surrounding these oils and their potential effects.

Mary J. Scourboutakos, Adjunct Lecturer in Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Christine Leuenberger, Cornell University

Maps are ubiquitous – on phones, in-flight and car displays, and in textbooks the world over. While some maps delineate and name territories and boundaries, others show different voting blocs in elections, and GPS devices help drivers navigate to their destination.

But no matter the purpose, all maps have something in common: They are political. Making maps is about making decisions about what to omit and what to include. They are subject to selection, classification, abstractions and simplifications. And studying the choices that go into maps, as I do, can reveal different stories about land and the people who claim it as theirs.

Nowhere is this more true than in the contested regions that today include modern-day Israel and the Palestinian territories. Since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, different governmental and nongovernmental organizations and political interest groups have engaged in what can best be described as “map wars.”

Maps of the region use the naming of places, the position of borders and the inclusion or omission of certain territories to present contrasting geopolitical visions. To this day, Israel or the Palestinian territories may fall off some maps, depending on the politics of their makers.

This is not exclusive to the Middle East – “map wars” are underway across the globe. Some of the more well-known examples include disputes between Ukraine and Russia, Taiwan and China, and India and China. All are engaged in controversies over the territorial integrity of nation-states.

A short history of maps

Traditionally, maps have been used to represent cosmologies, cultures and belief systems. By the 17th century, maps that represented spatial relations within a given territory beaome important to the making of nation-states. Such official maps helped annex territories and determine property rights. Indeed, to map a territory meant to know and control it.

More recently, the tools for making maps have become more broadly accessible. Anyone with a computer and internet access can now make and share “alternative maps” that present different visions of a territory and make varied geopolitical claims.

And maps produced in a conflict region, such as Israel and the Palestinian territories, tell a rich story about the relationship between mapmaking and politics.

Mapping the Middle East

During the British Mandate of Palestine from 1917 to 1947, British surveyors mapped the territories to exercise their control over the land and its people. It was an attempt to supersede the more informal Ottoman land claims of the time.

By the founding of Israel in 1948, only about 20% of the total area of what is known as historic Palestine had been mapped – a fact that has fueled land disputes to this day. The British mapping efforts and their omissions enabled the newly established state of Israel to declare most of the territories as state land, thereby delegitimizing Palestinian land claims.

Maps also helped build the Israeli state. Surveyors and planners mapped the land to allocate land rights, and they helped build the state’s infrastructure, including roads and railroads.

But maps also helped create a sense of nationhood. Maps representing a nation’s shape by delineating its national borders are known as “logo” maps. They can enhance feelings of national unity and a sense of national belonging.

Once established, the Israeli state remade the maps of the region. An Israeli Governmental Names Commission came up with Hebrew names to replace formerly Arab and Christian names for different towns and villages on the official map of Israel. At the same time, formerly Palestinian topographies and places were omitted from the map.

Some Palestinian mapmakers, however, continue to make maps that include Palestinian named sites and depict pre-1948 historic Palestine – an area that stretches from River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Such maps are used to advocate for Palestinians’ right to land and foster a sense of national belonging.

At the same time, Palestinian cartographers who work with the Palestinian Authority – the government body that administers partial civil control over Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank – make official maps of the West Bank and Gaza in the hope of establishing a future state of Palestine. They align their maps with United Nations efforts to map the territories according to international law by demarking the West Bank and Gaza as separate from and as occupied by Israel.

After the 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. As a result, map wars intensified, especially between different fractions within Israel. The left-wing “peace camp,” which was dedicated to territorial compromises with the Palestinians, was pitted against an Israeli right wing committed to reclaiming the “Promised Land” for ensuring Israeli security.

Such incompatible geopolitical visions continue to be reflected in the maps produced. “Peace camp” maps adhere to the delineation of the territories according to international law. For example, they include the Green Line – the internationally recognized armistice line between the West Bank and Israel. Official maps produced by the Israeli government, by contrast, stopped delineating the Green Line after 1967.

Broader and border disputes

Not only have different interest groups and political actors used maps of the region to put forth competing geopolitical claims, but maps have also played a central role in sporadic efforts to establish peace in the region.

The 1993 Oslo Accords, for example, relied on maps to provide the framework for Palestinian self-rule in return for security for Israel. The aim was that after a five-year interim period, a permanent peace settlement would be negotiated based on the borders laid out in these maps.

Consequently, Palestinian planners and surveyors mapped the territory allocated to a future state of Palestine. With the Oslo Accords promising only a future state – but with its borders and level of sovereignty still uncertain – Palestinian experts nevertheless continue to prepare for governing the territories by mapping them.

The Oslo maps are used to this day to delineate geopolitical visions of Israel and a future state of Palestine that are based on international law. But for many Israelis, the Oslo vision of a two-state solution has died – the attack by Hamas, the Palestinian nationalist political organization that governs Gaza, on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, was its last blow.

The subsequent war between Israel and Hamas, currently subject to a cease-fire, has from the outset involved maps.

In December 2023, the Israeli military posted an online “evacuation map” that divided the Gaza Strip into 623 zones. Palestinians could go online – provided they have access to electricity and internet in a territory plagued by blackouts – to find out whether their neighborhood was called upon to evacuate. Israeli military commanders used this map to decide where to launch airstrikes and conduct ground maneuvers.

But the map served a political aim, too: to convince a skeptical world that Israel was taking care to protect civilians. Regardless, its introduction caused confusion and fear among Palestinians.

Charting a way forward

Maps aren’t just for making sense of the past and present – they help people imagine the future, too. And different maps can reveal conflicting geopolitical visions.

In January 2024, for example, various Israeli right-wing and settler organizations organized the Conference for the Victory of Israel. The aim was to plan for resettling Gaza and increase Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Speakers advocated for transferring Palestinians from the Strip to the Sinai through “voluntary emigration.” With Jewish settlers planning for the return to Gaza, and speakers citing both the Bible and Israeli security for justifications, an oversized map showed the location of proposed Jewish settlements.

Similarly, the Israeli Movement for Settlement in Southern Lebanon has published maps of planned Jewish settlements in Southern Lebanon.

Such maps reveal the desire by some in Israel for a “Greater Israel” – an area described in 1904 by Theodor Herzl, considered the father of modern-day Zionism, as spanning from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.

Unsurprisingly, Palestinians make different maps for envisioning the future. Palestine Emerging – a Palestinian and international initiative that brings together various experts, organizations, and funders – uses maps that connect Gaza to the West Bank and the wider region.

Their aim is to transform Gaza into a commercial hub for trade, tourism and innovation and to integrate it into the global economy. Accordingly, maps of urban projects, airports and seaports overlay the cartographic contours of Gaza; and a Gaza-West Bank corridor, which would be sealed for Israeli security, could connect the two geographically separate Palestinian territories.

Such maps reflect the efforts by Palestinian stakeholders to continue surveying the territories that, since the Oslo Accords, were to make up the future state of Palestine.

A new era of expansionist geopolitics

With the current U.S. administration more aligned with right-wing Israeli policies, maps of Greater Israel may guide what Hagit Ofran from Peace Now calls the beginning of a new “Greater Israel” policy period.

Seemingly upending the U.S. governments long-standing policy of supporting a two-state solution in which Gaza would be part of a Palestinian state, Donald Trump on Feb. 4, 2025, floated a plan for the U.S. to “take over” Gaza, moving its current inhabitants out and turning the enclave into “”the Riviera of the Middle East.”

Such a move would amount to another attempt to remake borders across the Middle East. It would not, however, end the “map wars” in Israel/Palestine.

Christine Leuenberger, Senior Lecturer, Cornell University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.