Should we be concerned about Treasury investments with what is happening?

[MrGreen]

I believe it has been confirmed that Musk & Co. now have access to the US Treasury's payment systems. Setting aside the nightmare of uncleared/unauthorized people accessing all that data, should we be concerned about investments in Treasuries? I saw elsewhere that if a payment on bonds is late it could have repercussions on the trustworthiness of US debt and cause values to drop, crash, whatever. From the purely financial side of things, should any action be taken? I suppose if that happens there'd likely be a cascade effect and maybe it wouldn't matter where our money was unless it was gold.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

To catch others up to speed:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/elon-musks-task-force-has-gained-access-to-sensitive-treasury-payment-systems-sources-say

I'd like to separate two kinds of payment:
* coupon / interest payments on U.S. Treasuries.  The U.S. always pays interest, and pays back principal - even to "terrorists" as Musk mentioned.  This allows U.S. Treasuries to be the largest, most liquid market in the world.  Anyone can trade them.  Efforts to prevent funding of terrorists organizations are handled in other ways, not by selectively stopping payment.  If Musk is allowed to meddle in this, he could do immense, immediate harm to the U.S. economy.  All treasuries would suffer a discount as they defaulted for the first time, and those people would suddenly have less money.  New treasuries would have to offer higher interest payments to compensate for the new risk of default.

* contractors working for the government.  That's probably too narrow a description, but I'm not familiar with how this works.  If Musk wants to go after DEI, this seems like a better target.  But stopping payment, after the government commits to paying, doesn't seem like a winning strategy in court.  It would make more sense to review contractors, and update criteria used for which contractors are given contracts.

I don't see why Elon Musk needs to meddle with government payments, to either contractors or U.S. Treasury interest & principal payments.  Seems like he should be reviewing contracts the government will issue, not payments the government is obligated to make.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

If the 'full faith and credit of the United States" becomes worthless, forget gold.  Buy ammunition.

[bacchi]

If the 'full faith and credit of the United States" becomes worthless, forget gold.  Buy ammunition.

A semi-prepper friend of mine claims that sugar is a close 2nd. It's a desired product that has a long shelf life. When you get tired of eating rats, you can mix it up with a tablespoon of sugar on top.

[bacchi]

To answer the question: Would international bonds work? Something like BNDX or even VWOB.

[MrGreen]

To answer the question: Would international bonds work? Something like BNDX or even VWOB.

Yes, that works. I don't know why I hadn't thought about an international bond fund. I guess because I've never held international-specific funds before. We may take a small international equities position as well if these tarrifs keep escalating.

[Heckler]

To answer the question: Would international bonds work? Something like BNDX or even VWOB.

Yes, that works. I don't know why I hadn't thought about an international bond fund. I guess because I've never held international-specific funds before. We may take a small international equities position as well if these tarrifs keep escalating.

Something like IEFA or VEA?

[lhamo]

I just cashed in an I bond on Saturday.  Money is supposed to hit my checking account on Tuesday.  Hope it makes it....

[Scandium]

If the 'full faith and credit of the United States" becomes worthless, forget gold.  Buy ammunition.

I've been stocking up on AP fin-stabilized discarding sabot rounds, but sadly my local dealer is running short. When they sell the national guard for parts I hope to pick up some deals.

[Radagast]

There's really nothing underlying Treasuries except promises of politicians. Countries devalue them very quickly in time of war. History shows that bond markets do not price in deep risks. So, investing in treasury bonds is always full of risk. I keep about 10% in treasury bonds, half in savings bonds which I think could be treated separately and thus offer a degree of diversification but... the same thing still applies.

[ChpBstrd]

There's also a glass-half-full view to buying treasuries.

If the U.S. manages to cut enough government expenditures, it could be a situation like Argentina (U.S. Republicans somewhat idolize the Argentine president) where the odds of a government default actually go down. If the US's debt-GDP ratio goes down, it will make eventual repayment of treasuries more likely, and the odds of a dollar devaluation less likely. So all the budget cuts to the FAA, Medicare, civil service, etc. are actually good things from a bond investor's point of view.

Of course, the catch is that the US administration is only cutting spending by $xx so that they can justify cutting tax revenues by $xxxxxx and send the national debt soaring. So the way things actually go could actually increase the long-term risk of default or a currency crisis. The risk to worry about is the coming tax bill, not any of today's hot news items.

And if you're worried about a recession, treasuries are the place to be. Demand for safe haven investing will increase, rates will decrease, and you'll be able to exit your treasuries at a premium to what you paid, just in time to buy risky assets at a discount.

To answer the question: Would international bonds work? Something like BNDX or even VWOB.

This seems intuitively better, but there are 2 major problems:

1) A partial default by the US would create a financial earthquake that could topple banks and bond-issuing companies around the world, potentially leading to a wave of defaults. This could co-occur with a recession triggered by the default.

2) International bonds that pay in dollars might give you back a currency that has lost much of its value. Imagine, for example, being an investor who loaned the Russian government rubles at a given interest rate in 2021. Since then, the rubles they will receive in interest and return-of-principal have lost 37% of their value. In that case, our Russian investor has lost purchasing power. So how much would the USD be worth if the US voluntarily defaulted on its obligations? What would your dollar-denominated international bond be worth if interest rates in the US were soaring, and we were entering a situation like Turkyie' where the president demanded the central bank lower rates instead of raise them to deal with inflation and the lira soon lost most of its value?

Just some contrarian thoughts.

[bacchi]

There's also a glass-half-full view to buying treasuries.

If the U.S. manages to cut enough government expenditures, it could be a situation like Argentina (U.S. Republicans somewhat idolize the Argentine president) where the odds of a government default actually go down. If the US's debt-GDP ratio goes down, it will make eventual repayment of treasuries more likely, and the odds of a dollar devaluation less likely. So all the budget cuts to the FAA, Medicare, civil service, etc. are actually good things from a bond investor's point of view.

Of course, the catch is that the US administration is only cutting spending by $xx so that they can justify cutting tax revenues by $xxxxxx and send the national debt soaring. So the way things actually go could actually increase the long-term risk of default or a currency crisis. The risk to worry about is the coming tax bill, not any of today's hot news items.

And if you're worried about a recession, treasuries are the place to be. Demand for safe haven investing will increase, rates will decrease, and you'll be able to exit your treasuries at a premium to what you paid, just in time to buy risky assets at a discount.

To answer the question: Would international bonds work? Something like BNDX or even VWOB.

This seems intuitively better, but there are 2 major problems:

1) A partial default by the US would create a financial earthquake that could topple banks and bond-issuing companies around the world, potentially leading to a wave of defaults. This could co-occur with a recession triggered by the default.

2) International bonds that pay in dollars might give you back a currency that has lost much of its value. Imagine, for example, being an investor who loaned the Russian government rubles at a given interest rate in 2021. Since then, the rubles they will receive in interest and return-of-principal have lost 37% of their value. In that case, our Russian investor has lost purchasing power. So how much would the USD be worth if the US voluntarily defaulted on its obligations? What would your dollar-denominated international bond be worth if interest rates in the US were soaring, and we were entering a situation like Turkyie' where the president demanded the central bank lower rates instead of raise them to deal with inflation and the lira soon lost most of its value?

Just some contrarian thoughts.

BNDX holds non-USD denominated bonds. There is some forex hedging so that a ruble denominated bond doesn't become worthless but it's unclear if that's standardized or if the fund management can alter how those forex futures are bought/sold.

There's always a risk of contagion. In this case, the US is more at risk of a default than, say, England or Germany.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

There's also a glass-half-full view to buying treasuries.

If the U.S. manages to cut enough government expenditures, it could be a situation like Argentina (U.S. Republicans somewhat idolize the Argentine president) where the odds of a government default actually go down. If the US's debt-GDP ratio goes down, it will make eventual repayment of treasuries more likely, and the odds of a dollar devaluation less likely. So all the budget cuts to the FAA, Medicare, civil service, etc. are actually good things from a bond investor's point of view.

Of course, the catch is that the US administration is only cutting spending by $xx so that they can justify cutting tax revenues by $xxxxxx and send the national debt soaring. So the way things actually go could actually increase the long-term risk of default or a currency crisis. The risk to worry about is the coming tax bill, not any of today's hot news items.

And if you're worried about a recession, treasuries are the place to be. Demand for safe haven investing will increase, rates will decrease, and you'll be able to exit your treasuries at a premium to what you paid, just in time to buy risky assets at a discount.

To answer the question: Would international bonds work? Something like BNDX or even VWOB.

This seems intuitively better, but there are 2 major problems:

1) A partial default by the US would create a financial earthquake that could topple banks and bond-issuing companies around the world, potentially leading to a wave of defaults. This could co-occur with a recession triggered by the default.

2) International bonds that pay in dollars might give you back a currency that has lost much of its value. Imagine, for example, being an investor who loaned the Russian government rubles at a given interest rate in 2021. Since then, the rubles they will receive in interest and return-of-principal have lost 37% of their value. In that case, our Russian investor has lost purchasing power. So how much would the USD be worth if the US voluntarily defaulted on its obligations? What would your dollar-denominated international bond be worth if interest rates in the US were soaring, and we were entering a situation like Turkyie' where the president demanded the central bank lower rates instead of raise them to deal with inflation and the lira soon lost most of its value?

Just some contrarian thoughts.

BNDX holds non-USD denominated bonds. There is some forex hedging so that a ruble denominated bond doesn't become worthless but it's unclear if that's standardized or if the fund management can alter how those forex futures are bought/sold.

There's always a risk of contagion. In this case, the US is more at risk of a default than, say, England or Germany.

BNDX holds 0% Russian bonds, according to the list of countries on Vanguard's website.  (Look at "Weighted exposures", under "markets" tab)
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profile/bndx#portfolio-composition

Given the U.S. dollar's reserve currency status, the U.S. should be at lower risk of default.  If England inflates its currency, it will be avoided in a way that won't happen when the U.S. does the same.  Or maybe you meant bond ratings, where the UK has a lower rating than the U.S. :

Germany  AAA, stable
United States  AA+, stable
United Kingdom  AA, negative

https://disclosure.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/12657962

[corgiegirl]

According to this article Musk's access to the US Treasury payment system could eff up everything the US govrernment does, nothing is safe -

https://www.crisesnotes.com/elon-musk-wants-to-get-operational-control-of-the-treasurys-payment-system-this-could-not-possibly-be-more-dangerous/

[Christof]

Or maybe you meant bond ratings, where the UK has a lower rating than the U.S. :
Germany  AAA, stable
United States  AA+, stable
United Kingdom  AA, negative

There are 11 countries with a triple A rating. The two southmost countries are Canada and Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating

[Financial.Velociraptor]

There's really nothing underlying Treasuries except promises of politicians.

I'd say the Treasuries and the Dollar are ultimately backed primarily by the threat of violence.  That is, if you refuse to accept our dollars, the MIC will crack your skull repeatedly until you come to your senses.  Or at least until everyone else affirms USD are just groovy...

[bacchi]

There's also a glass-half-full view to buying treasuries.

If the U.S. manages to cut enough government expenditures, it could be a situation like Argentina (U.S. Republicans somewhat idolize the Argentine president) where the odds of a government default actually go down. If the US's debt-GDP ratio goes down, it will make eventual repayment of treasuries more likely, and the odds of a dollar devaluation less likely. So all the budget cuts to the FAA, Medicare, civil service, etc. are actually good things from a bond investor's point of view.

Of course, the catch is that the US administration is only cutting spending by $xx so that they can justify cutting tax revenues by $xxxxxx and send the national debt soaring. So the way things actually go could actually increase the long-term risk of default or a currency crisis. The risk to worry about is the coming tax bill, not any of today's hot news items.

And if you're worried about a recession, treasuries are the place to be. Demand for safe haven investing will increase, rates will decrease, and you'll be able to exit your treasuries at a premium to what you paid, just in time to buy risky assets at a discount.

To answer the question: Would international bonds work? Something like BNDX or even VWOB.

This seems intuitively better, but there are 2 major problems:

1) A partial default by the US would create a financial earthquake that could topple banks and bond-issuing companies around the world, potentially leading to a wave of defaults. This could co-occur with a recession triggered by the default.

2) International bonds that pay in dollars might give you back a currency that has lost much of its value. Imagine, for example, being an investor who loaned the Russian government rubles at a given interest rate in 2021. Since then, the rubles they will receive in interest and return-of-principal have lost 37% of their value. In that case, our Russian investor has lost purchasing power. So how much would the USD be worth if the US voluntarily defaulted on its obligations? What would your dollar-denominated international bond be worth if interest rates in the US were soaring, and we were entering a situation like Turkyie' where the president demanded the central bank lower rates instead of raise them to deal with inflation and the lira soon lost most of its value?

Just some contrarian thoughts.

BNDX holds non-USD denominated bonds. There is some forex hedging so that a ruble denominated bond doesn't become worthless but it's unclear if that's standardized or if the fund management can alter how those forex futures are bought/sold.

There's always a risk of contagion. In this case, the US is more at risk of a default than, say, England or Germany.

BNDX holds 0% Russian bonds, according to the list of countries on Vanguard's website.  (Look at "Weighted exposures", under "markets" tab)
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profile/bndx#portfolio-composition

Given the U.S. dollar's reserve currency status, the U.S. should be at lower risk of default.  If England inflates its currency, it will be avoided in a way that won't happen when the U.S. does the same.  Or maybe you meant bond ratings, where the UK has a lower rating than the U.S. :

Germany  AAA, stable
United States  AA+, stable
United Kingdom  AA, negative

https://disclosure.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/12657962

No, by "in this case," I'm speaking about the current chaos in the US Dept of Treasury and the debt ceiling that has to be negotiated by infighting Republicans in the House with a slim majority. Neither Germany nor England are in the quagmire we're currently in with regard to governmental operations.

[Radagast]

There's really nothing underlying Treasuries except promises of politicians.

I'd say the Treasuries and the Dollar are ultimately backed primarily by the threat of violence.  That is, if you refuse to accept our dollars, the MIC will crack your skull repeatedly until you come to your senses.  Or at least until everyone else affirms USD are just groovy...

Exactly.
You: You owe me $1M!
USG: watcha gonna do cry about it?
You: I have a paper that says you have to pay me.
USG: (prints 1M $1M coins and passes them out) Here now beat it kid.
You: You didn’t raise taxes or sell any thing to give to me! You just wrote “$1M” on these little pieces of tin!
USG: watcha gonna do cry about it?

[SeattleCPA]

What does the word "access" mean?

This article from Politico is worth reading for the quotes (I assume accurate quotes) from Treasury officials and elected representatives.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/03/bessent-musk-doge-treasury-payments-00202278

At least some of the people quoted are either lying, misinformed or exaggerating.

[SeattleCPA]

I keep finding more and more ways to tap the power of ChatGPT so I thought I'd try to get its analysis of this issue. Here's what it said when I asked it to carefully parse the statements of elected and appointed officials:

Here’s a precise summary highlighting the contrasting statements regarding Elon Musk’s access to the U.S. Treasury’s payment system:

---

### **Conflicting Claims on Musk’s Treasury Access: A Close Examination** 

Recent reports about Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its access to the U.S. Treasury’s payment system have sparked significant controversy. However, a careful parsing of public statements reveals two competing narratives that many observers—journalists included—seem to be conflating. 

#### **Treasury’s Statement: Future, Read-Only Access** 
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has assured lawmakers that Musk’s team *does not currently* have access to the system and that any future access would be **strictly read-only**—limited to reviewing processes under supervision for efficiency improvements. His framing suggests that: 
- DOGE’s role is observational, not operational. 
- No changes to payment processing are currently possible by Musk or his team. 
- Any access, when granted, will be structured and monitored. 

Bessent’s position implies that the idea of Musk *controlling* payments is, at best, premature and, at worst, a misunderstanding or mischaracterization. 

#### **Elizabeth Warren’s Statement: Musk Already Has Control** 
In stark contrast, Senator Elizabeth Warren has asserted that Musk has already **seized direct control** of the Treasury’s payment system. Her exact words: 
> *"Elon just grabbed the controls of our whole payment system, demanding the power to turn it on for his friends or turn it off for anyone he doesn’t like. One guy deciding who gets paid and who doesn’t.”* 

This statement does not express concern about *potential* disruptions—it outright claims that Musk *presently* has operational authority over Treasury payments, implying he can **manipulate disbursements at will**. 

#### **Key Contradictions** 
| **Point of Comparison**  | **Treasury (Bessent’s Statement)** | **Warren’s Statement** |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------|
| **Timing of Access**    | Planned, but not yet granted     | Musk *already* has control |
| **Nature of Access**    | Read-only, supervised review    | Full operational control |
| **Ability to Alter Payments** | No, only observational     | Yes, Musk decides who gets paid |

#### **Why This Matters** 
These statements describe **two entirely different realities**. If Bessent’s account is accurate, then Warren’s claim is a dramatic misrepresentation. If Warren’s account is correct, then the Treasury is misleading the public about the extent of Musk’s authority. 

Despite the gravity of this issue, much of the media coverage has blurred this distinction, treating concerns about **potential** future risks (as described by Bessent) as though they confirm the **present** reality (as stated by Warren). This has led to widespread confusion and an alarmist narrative that may not reflect actual events. 

#### **The Unanswered Question** 
The key unresolved issue is **what specific permissions DOGE actually has**—and whether any official documentation supports either claim. Without clarity on this, the public is left to choose between two conflicting accounts without definitive proof. 

--- 

[ChpBstrd]

There's also a glass-half-full view to buying treasuries.

If the U.S. manages to cut enough government expenditures, it could be a situation like Argentina (U.S. Republicans somewhat idolize the Argentine president) where the odds of a government default actually go down. If the US's debt-GDP ratio goes down, it will make eventual repayment of treasuries more likely, and the odds of a dollar devaluation less likely. So all the budget cuts to the FAA, Medicare, civil service, etc. are actually good things from a bond investor's point of view.

Of course, the catch is that the US administration is only cutting spending by $xx so that they can justify cutting tax revenues by $xxxxxx and send the national debt soaring. So the way things actually go could actually increase the long-term risk of default or a currency crisis. The risk to worry about is the coming tax bill, not any of today's hot news items.

And if you're worried about a recession, treasuries are the place to be. Demand for safe haven investing will increase, rates will decrease, and you'll be able to exit your treasuries at a premium to what you paid, just in time to buy risky assets at a discount.

To answer the question: Would international bonds work? Something like BNDX or even VWOB.

This seems intuitively better, but there are 2 major problems:

1) A partial default by the US would create a financial earthquake that could topple banks and bond-issuing companies around the world, potentially leading to a wave of defaults. This could co-occur with a recession triggered by the default.

2) International bonds that pay in dollars might give you back a currency that has lost much of its value. Imagine, for example, being an investor who loaned the Russian government rubles at a given interest rate in 2021. Since then, the rubles they will receive in interest and return-of-principal have lost 37% of their value. In that case, our Russian investor has lost purchasing power. So how much would the USD be worth if the US voluntarily defaulted on its obligations? What would your dollar-denominated international bond be worth if interest rates in the US were soaring, and we were entering a situation like Turkyie' where the president demanded the central bank lower rates instead of raise them to deal with inflation and the lira soon lost most of its value?

Just some contrarian thoughts.

BNDX holds non-USD denominated bonds. There is some forex hedging so that a ruble denominated bond doesn't become worthless but it's unclear if that's standardized or if the fund management can alter how those forex futures are bought/sold.

There's always a risk of contagion. In this case, the US is more at risk of a default than, say, England or Germany.

BNDX holds 0% Russian bonds, according to the list of countries on Vanguard's website.  (Look at "Weighted exposures", under "markets" tab)
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profile/bndx#portfolio-composition

Given the U.S. dollar's reserve currency status, the U.S. should be at lower risk of default.  If England inflates its currency, it will be avoided in a way that won't happen when the U.S. does the same.  Or maybe you meant bond ratings, where the UK has a lower rating than the U.S. :

Germany  AAA, stable
United States  AA+, stable
United Kingdom  AA, negative

https://disclosure.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/12657962

I was just using the Russian bond experience as a real-life example of what can happen if the currency of a bond loses its value. All the debtor owes you, the bondholder, is the nominal amount of the currency they promised. If that currency loses 20% of its value in a year, the bondholder simply loses purchasing power.

Turkish debt is another example. The lira has lost 93.13% of its value against the USD in the past 10 years due to populist government mismanagement. The 10+% yields available back then turned out to be insufficient to preserve purchasing power for the bondholders who received a much-depreciated currency in the future.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

SeattleCPA - I think Democrats are expressing a fear, that Musk should not be allowed access to the Treasury system.  And then Republicans are clarifying Musk only has read-only access.  That said, Musk somehow convinced USAID to shut down.  I think the head was fired, allowing Marco Rubio to take over - but that series of steps probably started with Musk.  Democrats could also have the goal of drawing more attention to the situation, even if the details are unclear, in order to bring popular support against Musk's efforts.

I expect lawsuits, which naturally take years to resolve.  But courts can mandate a prior situation be restored (like reopening USAID) until the lawsuit is resolved.

Separate from that, Musk and Trump have taken actions while Congress wasn't in session.  This week, Congress is back in session, so they'll be able to counter some of the actions Trump has taken where they disagree.  While they support Trump in general, Congress is unlikely to give up their power of the purse.  USAID funding should only end when Congress says so.  I expect Congress to show Trump the limits of his Presidential power, but I could be wrong.

I don't think markets know what to make of it, yet.  Tariffs only hit the market 1.7% initially, and much less now that tariffs are delayed (on Canada and Mexico).  Doesn't seem to be an investment opportunity at this time - unless you expect more chaos and more market drops.

[Fru-Gal]

According to this article, he does have write access.

https://www.crisesnotes.com/day-five-of-the-trump-musk-treasury-payments-crisis-of-2025-not-read-only-access-anymore/

[MustacheAndaHalf]

According to this article, he does have write access.

https://www.crisesnotes.com/day-five-of-the-trump-musk-treasury-payments-crisis-of-2025-not-read-only-access-anymore/

Tracking down the author:
"Nathan Tankus is a lapsed student, now writer and researcher born and living in New York City."

Doesn't seem like a high quality source, and he cites anonymous sources.  Is there something higher quality backing up this claim without anonymous sources?

[Fru-Gal]

That was linked from ycombinator, there's a lot of discussion there among software developers you should check out. It's plausible that the situation is being overstated or understated.

One thing that's clear is that the situation is well outside established IT security protocols.

[NorCal]

I’m not a software engineer, but I’ve worked on the business side of a payments company.

I don’t know the government systems specifically, and I don’t care to read up on the articles at the moment.

The one thing I can say with confidence is that this is 90%+ speculation. No one here will have enough information to make an informed opinion.

Access to systems can mean different things.

The payments networks that send live data are different than those that store transaction records.  I have no reason to believe the underlying source systems for Treasury Bonds are fundamentally linked to payments systems.

If I were to guess what they’re doing (based entirely on their goals and mission), I would say they’ve extracted a subset of payments records to put in their own database to query and try to understand.

Data in payments networks is very difficult to make heads or tails of, even for those that know what they’re doing. Data analysis on payments data usually does a better job of highlighting gaps in the underlying data than telling you anything meaningful.

There are plenty of real legit reasons to be worried about the Trump administration. Save yourself the mental anguish of adding this speculative access to your worries.

[SeattleCPA]

SeattleCPA - I think Democrats are expressing a fear, that Musk should not be allowed access to the Treasury system.  And then Republicans are clarifying Musk only has read-only access.

I come to the same conclusion. But some Democratic leaders, specifically Elizabeth Warren, are apparently saying Musk's people have control (I think the quoted phrase was "already grabbed control".)

And then just as interesting to me, some of the media seem to be taking comments from people like Warren as fact and ignoring comments from Secretary of the Treasury Bessent where he's saying "limited, read-only access".

Thank you for being a voice of calm and reason here. If the journalists covering this story and the social media gadflies presented the situation as you have, we'd probably all sleep a lot better at night and find our blood pressure dropping.

Separate from that, Musk and Trump have taken actions while Congress wasn't in session.  This week, Congress is back in session, so they'll be able to counter some of the actions Trump has taken where they disagree.  While they support Trump in general, Congress is unlikely to give up their power of the purse.  USAID funding should only end when Congress says so.  I expect Congress to show Trump the limits of his Presidential power, but I could be wrong.

I hope so.

I don't think markets know what to make of it, yet.  Tariffs only hit the market 1.7% initially, and much less now that tariffs are delayed (on Canada and Mexico).  Doesn't seem to be an investment opportunity at this time - unless you expect more chaos and more market drops.

This is sort of a default setting for me (and sorry about that). But I think both Biden's economic policies and Trump's dampen growth. Trump's policies and approach to governance--and let me acknowledge in the end they may produce good outcomes or it make be that something like AI just massively boosts productivity--but Trump's approach seems to me likely to produce lots of risk. (Both upside and downside.)

Thus, I think moderating expected real returns makes sense. Hedging against inflation makes sense. For active investors buying rentals or entrepreneurs running small businesses, I think having extra liquidity and cash reserves makes sense because folks may get great opportunities.

[SeattleCPA]

That was linked from ycombinator, there's a lot of discussion there among software developers you should check out. It's plausible that the situation is being overstated or understated.

One thing that's clear is that the situation is well outside established IT security protocols.

It's pretty clear people are making stuff up here. So unsourced, inflammatory statements really need to be discounted.

Also I don't think you can say the situation is this way or that way when people don't really have any info about the details.

Again, you've got (last time I checked), the Secretary of the Treasury saying (as of last weekend) that some of the DOGE people would be in future granted limited supervised read-only access. And you've got Senator Elizabeth Warren saying and here I quote, "Elon just grabbed the controls of our whole payment system, demanding the power to turn it on for his friends or turn it off for anyone he doesn’t like. One guy deciding who gets paid and who doesn’t.”

One of those people is catastrophically misinformed. Or lying to the media and voters.



 

[SeattleCPA]

I’m not a software engineer, but I’ve worked on the business side of a payments company.

I don’t know the government systems specifically, and I don’t care to read up on the articles at the moment.

The one thing I can say with confidence is that this is 90%+ speculation. No one here will have enough information to make an informed opinion.

Access to systems can mean different things.

The payments networks that send live data are different than those that store transaction records.  I have no reason to believe the underlying source systems for Treasury Bonds are fundamentally linked to payments systems.

If I were to guess what they’re doing (based entirely on their goals and mission), I would say they’ve extracted a subset of payments records to put in their own database to query and try to understand.

Data in payments networks is very difficult to make heads or tails of, even for those that know what they’re doing. Data analysis on payments data usually does a better job of highlighting gaps in the underlying data than telling you anything meaningful.

There are plenty of real legit reasons to be worried about the Trump administration. Save yourself the mental anguish of adding this speculative access to your worries.

+1

And thank you, too, for being another voice of reason and wisdom.

[NorCal]

This is a good reminder to get off social media.

There’s plenty of real things to be concerned about.

Catastrophizing over speculative access to treasury systems is a good sign that social media is impacting your mental health.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Recent press release from the U.S. Treasury.  I bolded the phrase "read-only access":

To be clear, the agency responsible for making the payment always drives the payment process.  Currently, Treasury staff members working with Tom Krause, a Treasury employee, will have read-only access to the coded data of the Fiscal Service’s payment systems in order to continue this operational efficiency assessment.  This is similar to the kind of access that Treasury provides to individuals reviewing Treasury systems, such as auditors, and that follows practices associated with protecting the integrity of the systems and business processes.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0009

[Fru-Gal]

I’m not a software engineer, but I’ve worked on the business side of a payments company.

I don’t know the government systems specifically, and I don’t care to read up on the articles at the moment.

The one thing I can say with confidence is that this is 90%+ speculation. No one here will have enough information to make an informed opinion.

Access to systems can mean different things.

The payments networks that send live data are different than those that store transaction records.  I have no reason to believe the underlying source systems for Treasury Bonds are fundamentally linked to payments systems.

If I were to guess what they’re doing (based entirely on their goals and mission), I would say they’ve extracted a subset of payments records to put in their own database to query and try to understand.

Data in payments networks is very difficult to make heads or tails of, even for those that know what they’re doing. Data analysis on payments data usually does a better job of highlighting gaps in the underlying data than telling you anything meaningful.

There are plenty of real legit reasons to be worried about the Trump administration. Save yourself the mental anguish of adding this speculative access to your worries.

I too appreciate any reason and calm analysis.  I’m sure I’m not the only person on this forum who tends to be analytical and wants to understand a problem and its inputs more fully. Indeed, that’s something that I find very pleasurable. I’m also very averse to being manipulated by anyone, the media included. Right now I’m happy that software developers on Y Combinator and various elected representatives seem to be paying attention. We absolutely have to play the long game because I can’t go through another four years of every day is new outrage.

That said, I’m sure that a number of us are not on social media. I have no social media. And I’m hoping that in the next few years, we’re going to see a wholesale move away from billionaires-controlled social media.

[ClimateMind]

While I am not in full-on panic mode, I think those of you who are downplaying these developments; framing this as "Democrats exaggerating or even lying"; and taking the administration officials at their word, are not seeing the situation in it's full context, which is that Trump and his advisors have shown no interest in being honest, being clear, or following the law or the Constitution's principle of separation of powers. So it is logical not to take them at their word, and not just wait for them to clarify after the fact. A clarifying press release does not change this.

These developments occurred over the last week, and weekend, with astonishing lack of transparency or respect for process. There has been no explanation of what Doge's role was going to be or how it's aims fit legally into the executive branch's constitutional scope (by the way, I insist on pronouncing Doge as "doggy" and I encourage everyone else to do the same)

Meanwhile, Musk is posting all kinds of things on X about what he is going to do. Nowhere does he say he only has "read-only" access, and he is implying that he has power to shut down agencies that were put in place by Congress. Should we just not listen to him?

The Politico article posted earlier states that "Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent privately reassured Republican lawmakers" in a closed door meeting, and Bessent did not answer any questions by the press. I, personally, don't trust what Republicans say went on in a closed door meeting. It is not reassuring to hear what Republicans loyal to or afraid of Trump are willing to say, and it does not surprise me that Democratic politicians like Warren are sounding alarm bells. The reality is that we really don't know what the scope of Musk's power is or will soon be, and there is no reason to think that it will be limited, legal, or legitimately overseen by Congress.

Here's a question: Honestly, given how things have rolled out so far, how shocked would you be if, next week, Scott Bessent or the Treasury Department announces the Doge has been granted "partial" or "targeted" capacity to alter or halt only transactions that its team has deemed to be "criminal," "wasteful," and "contrary to the President's Executive Orders"? I, personally, would not surprised.

All this is to say that, yes, I think we should be concerned.

This Daily podcast from the NYT offers, I feel, a pretty level-headed summary of why what is happening should be concerning (which was the original question of this thread):

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?i=1000689271837

(and I mean concerning both for the state of our country; and, more to point of this thread, concerning for the stability of our investment planning)

(Edited for a little clarity, and also adding that I don't use any social media; and also added the podcast link above)

[Scandium]

While I am not in full-on panic mode, I think those of you who are downplaying these developments; framing this as "Democrats exaggerating or even lying"; and taking the administration officials at their word, are not seeing the situation in it's full context,

All this is to say that, yes, I think we should be concerned.

Even if so; so what? I can be not very concerned, or all out panic. But what does it matter? What's the point? My level of concern does nothing to change things. There's nothing I can do about it. So no, I'm not going to waste my mental energy by being "alarmed" constantly.

This is what the people wanted (or didn't care enough to vote against). It's going to happen no matter what I think. (I'll just hope the red states get what they wanted as hard as possible)

[NorCal]

While I am not in full-on panic mode, I think those of you who are downplaying these developments; framing this as "Democrats exaggerating or even lying"; and taking the administration officials at their word, are not seeing the situation in it's full context, which is that Trump and his advisors have shown no interest in being honest, being clear, or following the law or the Constitution's principle of separation of powers. So it is logical not to take them at their word, and not just wait for them to clarify after the fact. A clarifying press release does not change this.

These developments occurred over the last week, and weekend, with astonishing lack of transparency or respect for process. There has been no explanation of what Doge's role was going to be or how it's aims fit legally into the executive branch's constitutional scope (by the way, I insist on pronouncing Doge as "doggy" and I encourage everyone else to do the same)

Meanwhile, Musk is posting all kinds of things on X about what he is going to do. Nowhere does he say he only has "read-only" access, and he is implying that he has power to shut down agencies that were put in place by Congress. Should we just not listen to him?

The Politico article posted earlier states that "Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent privately reassured Republican lawmakers" in a closed door meeting, and Bessent did not answer any questions by the press. I, personally, don't trust what Republicans say went on in a closed door meeting. It is not reassuring to hear what Republicans loyal to or afraid of Trump are willing to say, and it does not surprise me that Democratic politicians like Warren are sounding alarm bells. The reality is that we really don't know what the scope of Musk's power is or will soon be, and there is no reason to think that it will be limited, legal, or legitimately overseen by Congress.

Here's a question: Honestly, given how things have rolled out so far, how shocked would you be if, next week, Scott Bessent or the Treasury Department announces the Doge has been granted "partial" or "targeted" capacity to alter or halt only transactions that its team has deemed to be "criminal," "wasteful," and "contrary to the President's Executive Orders"? I, personally, would not surprised.

All this is to say that, yes, I think we should be concerned.

This Daily podcast from the NYT offers, I feel, a pretty level-headed summary of why what is happening should be concerning (which was the original question of this thread):

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?i=1000689271837

(and I mean concerning both for the state of our country; and, more to point of this thread, concerning for the stability of our investment planning)

(Edited for a little clarity, and also adding that I don't use any social media; and also added the podcast link above)

Don't get me wrong.  Both Musk and Trump's are doing their best to be real life James Bond villains.  They should not be trusted with anything. 

We should be outraged about the blatantly illegal and unconstitutional executive orders.  We should be outraged about an uncountable not-quite government agency trying to fire a significant part of the federal workforce.

We don't need to be worked up into a frenzy over risks to Treasury Bonds because of access to a likely unrelated Treasury system. 

[ChpBstrd]

All these EO's and damaging statements and clown appointments are details.

The meta-problem is the collapse of the Democratic Party as a plausible opposition force. They've lost the internet, lost the youth, lost business, lost minorities, and purged their centrists and young people in favor of elderly coastal lawyers. Their grass roots have withered as the party leaned into virtue signalling, word games for status, and symbolic issues most voters don't care about. Whole states have been utterly written off, and the locals are unable to adapt their party to fit those states because the big city folks will attack them and cut off funding.

This is why we live in a one-party country, and why all these detailed problems can arise. It's only going to get worse, as one-party states have always done throughout history and across geography.

[Fru-Gal]

All these EO's and damaging statements and clown appointments are details.

The meta-problem is the collapse of the Democratic Party as a plausible opposition force. They've lost the internet, lost the youth, lost business, lost minorities, and purged their centrists and young people in favor of elderly coastal lawyers. Their grass roots have withered as the party leaned into virtue signalling, word games for status, and symbolic issues most voters don't care about. Whole states have been utterly written off, and the locals are unable to adapt their party to fit those states because the big city folks will attack them and cut off funding.

This is why we live in a one-party country, and why all these detailed problems can arise. It's only going to get worse, as one-party states have always done throughout history and across geography.

Disagree that Dems are the problem, when they had the only candidate yet to beat Trump, Biden — and he was an excellent president despite only one term. Agree that two-party is a problem. Also we should expand the Supreme Court and introduce term limits for judges.

None of that matters at the moment. Circle of control.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

All these EO's and damaging statements and clown appointments are details.

The meta-problem is the collapse of the Democratic Party as a plausible opposition force. They've lost the internet, lost the youth, lost business, lost minorities, and purged their centrists and young people in favor of elderly coastal lawyers. Their grass roots have withered as the party leaned into virtue signalling, word games for status, and symbolic issues most voters don't care about. Whole states have been utterly written off, and the locals are unable to adapt their party to fit those states because the big city folks will attack them and cut off funding.

This is why we live in a one-party country, and why all these detailed problems can arise. It's only going to get worse, as one-party states have always done throughout history and across geography.

Disagree that Dems are the problem, when they had the only candidate yet to beat Trump, Biden — and he was an excellent president despite only one term. Agree that two-party is a problem. Also we should expand the Supreme Court and introduce term limits for judges.

None of that matters at the moment. Circle of control.

@ChpBstrd  @FruGal

I'm one of those 'big city educated white elites' that leans Progressive.  I have attended a number of the Democratic Party events in the area over the years.  Is there anything I can do personally at the local level to drive the party towards the center, common sense, and youth?  E.g. what is my 'circle of control'?

[Fru-Gal]

All these EO's and damaging statements and clown appointments are details.

The meta-problem is the collapse of the Democratic Party as a plausible opposition force. They've lost the internet, lost the youth, lost business, lost minorities, and purged their centrists and young people in favor of elderly coastal lawyers. Their grass roots have withered as the party leaned into virtue signalling, word games for status, and symbolic issues most voters don't care about. Whole states have been utterly written off, and the locals are unable to adapt their party to fit those states because the big city folks will attack them and cut off funding.

This is why we live in a one-party country, and why all these detailed problems can arise. It's only going to get worse, as one-party states have always done throughout history and across geography.

Disagree that Dems are the problem, when they had the only candidate yet to beat Trump, Biden — and he was an excellent president despite only one term. Agree that two-party is a problem. Also we should expand the Supreme Court and introduce term limits for judges.

None of that matters at the moment. Circle of control.

@ChpBstrd  @FruGal

I'm one of those 'big city educated white elites' that leans Progressive.  I have attended a number of the Democratic Party events in the area over the years.  Is there anything I can do personally at the local level to drive the party towards the center, common sense, and youth?  E.g. what is my 'circle of control'?

Local politics are sooo important. Or even just community events, community building, etc. Also the Democratic voters are younger, fitter (lower obesity, lower disease), more female and more ethnically diverse than the Republican Party. Right now blaming Democrats is just a way for MAGA to keep us from staying focused.

Also, youth in general are always disaffected. My kids (who both voted) were surrounded by EDUCATED friends in the 18-25 cohort who not only did not vote, but had never heard of Kamala Harris. They said they never saw Harris memes on social media, only Trump. The constant drumbeat of Trump Trump Trump creates name recognition and even in local politics, everyone votes for the name they heard of not the one they didn’t.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

All these EO's and damaging statements and clown appointments are details.

The meta-problem is the collapse of the Democratic Party as a plausible opposition force. They've lost the internet, lost the youth, lost business, lost minorities, and purged their centrists and young people in favor of elderly coastal lawyers. Their grass roots have withered as the party leaned into virtue signalling, word games for status, and symbolic issues most voters don't care about. Whole states have been utterly written off, and the locals are unable to adapt their party to fit those states because the big city folks will attack them and cut off funding.

This is why we live in a one-party country, and why all these detailed problems can arise. It's only going to get worse, as one-party states have always done throughout history and across geography.

You watched close elections, and conclude you "live in a one-party country"?  How do you explain U.S. Presidents alternating between parties since 1989?  The U.S. is increasingly polarized and divided, neither of which are possible with only one party.

African-Americans voted more heavily for Democrats than any other ethnic group did.  Democrats haven't "lost minorities".  I think you see a change of a few percent towards Trump, and exaggerate it, but it isn't true.

In my view, exaggeration is a big problem in politics.  The media shows the most extreme voices to offend or shock people, which drives longer viewing times and gets them paid (through ads).  In reality, the majority of people are closer to the center, which is a boring place for the media to report on - so they don't.  My hope is that extremes will be ignored at some point, and the center will gain a greater voice in the news and in selecting candidates.

[NorCal]

All these EO's and damaging statements and clown appointments are details.

The meta-problem is the collapse of the Democratic Party as a plausible opposition force. They've lost the internet, lost the youth, lost business, lost minorities, and purged their centrists and young people in favor of elderly coastal lawyers. Their grass roots have withered as the party leaned into virtue signalling, word games for status, and symbolic issues most voters don't care about. Whole states have been utterly written off, and the locals are unable to adapt their party to fit those states because the big city folks will attack them and cut off funding.

This is why we live in a one-party country, and why all these detailed problems can arise. It's only going to get worse, as one-party states have always done throughout history and across geography.

Disagree that Dems are the problem, when they had the only candidate yet to beat Trump, Biden — and he was an excellent president despite only one term. Agree that two-party is a problem. Also we should expand the Supreme Court and introduce term limits for judges.

None of that matters at the moment. Circle of control.

@ChpBstrd  @FruGal

I'm one of those 'big city educated white elites' that leans Progressive.  I have attended a number of the Democratic Party events in the area over the years.  Is there anything I can do personally at the local level to drive the party towards the center, common sense, and youth?  E.g. what is my 'circle of control'?

I'm not going to disagree with the above statements, although I think "collapse of the Democratic party" is a bit overstated. 

I do want to focus on one specific aspect of it.

Biden's presidency was largely defined by climate change.  The big political victory of his term was climate change related and the meaningful federal action was heavily centered around climate change.  The democratic party has a heavy core of voters (myself included) that view climate change as an existential risk and a national emergency.  The problem is that climate change isn't at the top of the list of priorities for most voters.  Most people who care about climate change still rank it well below other day-to-day concerns.

Republicans are very much into oil & gas in a way that extends beyond big company donations.  Oil & gas is more of a cultural phenomenon.  Many rural areas are only financially viable because of the oil & gas industry.  O&G jobs are the only good paying jobs in the region.  Many rural landowners only balance their budget because of a couple-thousand a year in mineral right payments.  The book Amity and Prosperity is a depressing read to understand how deeply embedded O&G is in some people's lives.

Bringing this back to "Circle of Control", the biggest lever most people have is to find ways to spend less on oil and gas products.  Either directly or through your utility.  The path through this involves slowly breaking down the local Political Economies of the O&G sector by simply putting less money through it.  It also involves building up competing Political Economies of renewable energy jobs (EV factories, solar installer jobs, heat pump technicians, etc).  The IRA was a good attempt at this, but it will take a decade or two to make a difference. 

[Financial.Velociraptor]

Bringing this back to "Circle of Control", the biggest lever most people have is to find ways to spend less on oil and gas products.  Either directly or through your utility. 

So, I worked most of my short career in accounting for Oil and Gas.  And I've already done above.  In Texas, most of us have electricity provider "choice" as the market is largely deregulated.  I pay about 0.4c/kwh more for a plan that is 100% renewables sourced.  Ten years ago the premium was 0.6c/kwh and I suspect it will eventually reach parity.  Exploring a DIY project for back  yard ground mount solar constructed out of all components that are acquired used.  10-15  year old panels that still have 80% or more of their rated capacity are increasingly available at attract $/watt pricing.  I want to experiment with agrovoltaics growing mushroom and berries under the panels. It is a double win as this will add some resilience especially during hurricane season.

[NorCal]

Bringing this back to "Circle of Control", the biggest lever most people have is to find ways to spend less on oil and gas products.  Either directly or through your utility. 

So, I worked most of my short career in accounting for Oil and Gas.  And I've already done above.  In Texas, most of us have electricity provider "choice" as the market is largely deregulated.  I pay about 0.4c/kwh more for a plan that is 100% renewables sourced.  Ten years ago the premium was 0.6c/kwh and I suspect it will eventually reach parity.  Exploring a DIY project for back  yard ground mount solar constructed out of all components that are acquired used.  10-15  year old panels that still have 80% or more of their rated capacity are increasingly available at attract $/watt pricing.  I want to experiment with agrovoltaics growing mushroom and berries under the panels. It is a double win as this will add some resilience especially during hurricane season.

All good stuff.

I’ve been working on various home projects related to efficiency and electrification since about 2020.

More details are on other threads, but I’m almost at the point of spending $0 on hydrocarbons either directly or through my utility. My last two hydrocarbon powered devices are my propane bbq and my backpacking stove.


My solar panels just went up yesterday. Although it will be a few months before I get to turn them on.

[ClimateMind]

While I am not in full-on panic mode, I think those of you who are downplaying these developments; framing this as "Democrats exaggerating or even lying"; and taking the administration officials at their word, are not seeing the situation in it's full context,

All this is to say that, yes, I think we should be concerned.

Even if so; so what? I can be not very concerned, or all out panic. But what does it matter? What's the point? My level of concern does nothing to change things. There's nothing I can do about it. So no, I'm not going to waste my mental energy by being "alarmed" constantly.

This is what the people wanted (or didn't care enough to vote against). It's going to happen no matter what I think. (I'll just hope the red states get what they wanted as hard as possible)

I agree that, almost by definition, wasting mental energy being alarmed constantly is not a good idea. I still think it is worth being concerned, for a few reasons...

1) I think there is a benefit to being educated and informed about what is going on, and that, for me at lease, causes concern if it looks like its going to hurt me, loved ones, or people in general;
2) There are still actions we can take as citizens that, in aggregate, might make a difference in preventing the worst outcome (which I would say is an authoritarian regime), and I don't feel like throwing up my hands and saying, "What's the point?". That's sort of the problem with the whole "circle of control" idea - it can support rationalizing away areas where we do have control, even if it is not full control.
3) For planning purposes - I still think there's a reasonable chance the Musk/Trump presidency will tank the economy or break our government system, and that might impact my investment or life planning in various ways

Here's an unrelated, but parallel example (and a lot more important than my treasury bond investments): One of my kids identifies as non-binary and has a US Passport that identifies their gender as "X". Trump recently cancelled that as an option because he thinks there are only two genders. Supposedly, this is not a retroactive change, and "only" affects new passport applications. However, I am concerned enough that I am planning for the possibility that, as some future date, Trump will pass an EO stating that passports with "X" as a gender are no longer be recognized as valid. Or, perhaps, people with "X" as a gender (and anyone identifying as transgender) will be determined to have a mental illness and need mandatory treatment in internment camps. I know that may seem extreme, but I am certainly thinking about that as a possibility because it would have such an impact on me and my family. Is this within my circle of control?

[Fru-Gal]

Within your circle of control is the ability to plan now your escape options. That’s what I have already done & am working on. The main point about circle of control I was making is not looking back and casting blame at the recent election. That’s over and done, we’re on to the next obstacles.

But I understand we are all going to go through a lot of shock and have to process that as best we can.

[lhamo]

The funds from cashing out an Ibond on Saturday hit my checking account yesterday.  N=1, but maybe reassuring to some of us?

[rocketpj]

I'm not an American and the US just started a completely pointless trade war with my country.  Sure, he backed off at the last minute, but only for 30 days and then it will be another round of bluster and threats.  My impression is that the markets knew he was full of BS, which is why they didn't crash as hard as they will whenever he actually follows through.

Within my circle of control exists my investment portfolio.  I realized today that it's been awhile since I rebalanced, so I spent a good part of today realigning my investments with current realities.  The US might start trade wars with its allies and neighbors, but it won't be with very much of my investments going forward. 

N=1, but I moved a few hundred thousand out of my US indices into other indexes, including more Europe and Asian indexes.  I've also signficantly reduced my exposure to US bonds as a part of that process.  Whatever is happening at the Treasury department, the head of government is crashing around making staggeringly stupid declarations and infuriating or alienating most of the Allies the US had until a couple of weeks ago.  We've all been taught, very clearly, that Trump was not a one-off anomaly, rather Biden's nightmare of quiet competent governance was the anomaly. 

I am definitely short on the US at this point.  I'm just a microscopic fish in a huge ocean, but I won't be at all surprised if many of the larger global financial sharks start setting up some major hedges against US volatility.  You can't run a country like you do a real estate and construction deal.  Economies thrive on certainty and the rule of law.  Throw those out and the risk goes up dramatically, which means investment goes down or it expects much larger returns on that risk.

[FireLane]

Recent press release from the U.S. Treasury.  I bolded the phrase "read-only access":

To be clear, the agency responsible for making the payment always drives the payment process.  Currently, Treasury staff members working with Tom Krause, a Treasury employee, will have read-only access to the coded data of the Fiscal Service’s payment systems in order to continue this operational efficiency assessment.  This is similar to the kind of access that Treasury provides to individuals reviewing Treasury systems, such as auditors, and that follows practices associated with protecting the integrity of the systems and business processes.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0009

Wired magazine says they have two sources within the Treasury department that directly contradict this claim:

https://archive.is/BeuPr

A 25-year-old engineer named Marko Elez, who previously worked for two Elon Musk companies, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the US government, three sources tell WIRED.

Two of those sources say that Elez’s privileges include the ability not just to read but to write code on two of the most sensitive systems in the US government: The Payment Automation Manager (PAM) and Secure Payment System (SPS) at the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS). Housed on a top-secret mainframe, these systems control, on a granular level, government payments that in their totality amount to more than a fifth of the US economy.

Despite reporting that suggests that Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) task force has access to these Treasury systems on a “read-only” level, sources say Elez, who has visited a Kansas City office housing BFS systems, has many administrator-level privileges. Typically, those admin privileges could give someone the power to log into servers through secure shell access, navigate the entire file system, change user permissions, and delete or modify critical files. That could allow someone to bypass the security measures of, and potentially cause irreversible changes to, the very systems they have access to.

[MrGreen]

Recent press release from the U.S. Treasury.  I bolded the phrase "read-only access":

To be clear, the agency responsible for making the payment always drives the payment process.  Currently, Treasury staff members working with Tom Krause, a Treasury employee, will have read-only access to the coded data of the Fiscal Service’s payment systems in order to continue this operational efficiency assessment.  This is similar to the kind of access that Treasury provides to individuals reviewing Treasury systems, such as auditors, and that follows practices associated with protecting the integrity of the systems and business processes.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0009

Wired magazine says they have two sources within the Treasury department that directly contradict this claim:

https://archive.is/BeuPr

A 25-year-old engineer named Marko Elez, who previously worked for two Elon Musk companies, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the US government, three sources tell WIRED.

Two of those sources say that Elez’s privileges include the ability not just to read but to write code on two of the most sensitive systems in the US government: The Payment Automation Manager (PAM) and Secure Payment System (SPS) at the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS). Housed on a top-secret mainframe, these systems control, on a granular level, government payments that in their totality amount to more than a fifth of the US economy.

Despite reporting that suggests that Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) task force has access to these Treasury systems on a “read-only” level, sources say Elez, who has visited a Kansas City office housing BFS systems, has many administrator-level privileges. Typically, those admin privileges could give someone the power to log into servers through secure shell access, navigate the entire file system, change user permissions, and delete or modify critical files. That could allow someone to bypass the security measures of, and potentially cause irreversible changes to, the very systems they have access to.

It could be that I don't understand payment systems but why are coders involved in accounting? Who is writing code to make payments? I've never made a payment to anything other than through a graphical user interface. I would stretch to say a database query.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Recent press release from the U.S. Treasury.  I bolded the phrase "read-only access":

To be clear, the agency responsible for making the payment always drives the payment process.  Currently, Treasury staff members working with Tom Krause, a Treasury employee, will have read-only access to the coded data of the Fiscal Service’s payment systems in order to continue this operational efficiency assessment.  This is similar to the kind of access that Treasury provides to individuals reviewing Treasury systems, such as auditors, and that follows practices associated with protecting the integrity of the systems and business processes.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0009

Wired magazine says they have two sources within the Treasury department that directly contradict this claim:

https://archive.is/BeuPr

A 25-year-old engineer named Marko Elez, who previously worked for two Elon Musk companies, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the US government, three sources tell WIRED.

Two of those sources say that Elez’s privileges include the ability not just to read but to write code on two of the most sensitive systems in the US government: The Payment Automation Manager (PAM) and Secure Payment System (SPS) at the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS). Housed on a top-secret mainframe, these systems control, on a granular level, government payments that in their totality amount to more than a fifth of the US economy.

Despite reporting that suggests that Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) task force has access to these Treasury systems on a “read-only” level, sources say Elez, who has visited a Kansas City office housing BFS systems, has many administrator-level privileges. Typically, those admin privileges could give someone the power to log into servers through secure shell access, navigate the entire file system, change user permissions, and delete or modify critical files. That could allow someone to bypass the security measures of, and potentially cause irreversible changes to, the very systems they have access to.

WIRED is a decent source, especially on IT matters, and I'm glad they named a source.  (His third job at 25 years old is top secret programming for the U.S. Treasury?)  Elez Marko's write access isn't Musk's write access, so the first paragraph isn't as relevant as the second.  The claim that Musk has some administrative privileges is disturbing.  The power to change files on their top-secret payment system mainframe is extremely powerful, and Musk shouldn't have that kind of access.  But a lawsuit isn't immediately stopping Musk:

"During a hearing Wednesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly signaled she might temporarily bar the Musk allies from disseminating the records outside of Treasury."
"But on Wednesday evening, Kollar-Kotelly held off on issuing an immediate order, instead encouraging attorneys for the employees to confer with the Justice Department to see if an agreement is possible to maintain the status quo while the lawsuit proceeds."
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/05/elon-musk-lawsuit-treasury-records-00202736