From NSSM 200 to Musk’s Treasury: The Evolution of America’s Covert Empire

How the Tools of Control Have Shifted—But the Agenda Remains the Same

Preface

Elon Musk’s recent actions targeting USAID and the Treasury payment systems have ignited a political firestorm. In a breathtaking display of power consolidation, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was granted access to Treasury-controlled financial infrastructure—effectively allowing him insight into, and potentially influence over, trillions in federal payments. Meanwhile, USAID has been locked out of its own headquarters, its website taken offline, its employees barred from their offices. Trump’s administration claims this is a mere ‘restructuring,’ placing USAID under the direct control of the State Department. The media, predictably, has focused on the theatrics of this move. But that’s a distraction.

The real story isn’t USAID’s closure—it’s its continuity. The institution was never meant to serve humanitarian ends. It has always functioned as an instrument of strategic power, a covert arm of American influence masquerading as aid. NSSM 200 remains my ‘favourite’ (read: most damning) example of USAID’s true role. What we are witnessing today is not a dismantling of that role, but an evolution of its methods. The shift to the State Department, far from limiting USAID’s capacity for intervention, likely reinforces its function within the traditional mechanisms of U.S. foreign policy. Meanwhile, Musk’s ambitions—both financial and technological—reveal an unsettling new frontier of control. If we are to understand the full scope of these developments, we must first revisit the playbook that brought us here.

NSSM 200 and the Economics of Control

The conventional American narrative insists that the U.S. is a beacon of generosity, a nation that extends aid to the world’s most vulnerable. It is a story told in grand speeches at the UN, in glossy USAID brochures, in the self-congratulatory rhetoric of political elites. But reality tells a different story. Since the mid-20th century, U.S. aid policies have been shaped not by altruism, but by economic coercion, geopolitical strategy, and, at times, outright population control.

The most glaring example of this agenda is the National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), a document so brazen in its imperial ambitions that it reads like the blueprint of a dystopian novel. Declassified in 1989, NSSM 200 was commissioned in 1974 under Henry Kissinger—a man whose legacy is steeped in Machiavellian statecraft. The report did not concern itself with famine relief, infrastructure development, or poverty eradication. Instead, it identified rapid population growth in 13 key developing nations—India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia—as a ‘threat’ to U.S. national security. The proposed solution? A comprehensive program of population control, to be implemented under the guise of ‘aid.’

NSSM 200 was not an anomaly. It was an articulation of a long-standing strategic imperative: to ensure that the resources of the developing world remain available for American consumption, unchallenged by rising domestic demand in those nations. In Kissinger’s vision, birth control programs, sterilization campaigns, and economic policies designed to suppress population growth were not humanitarian efforts—they were instruments of strategic control. USAID, the report’s primary vehicle, was tasked with embedding these policies into foreign aid programs across the Global South.

The consequences of this policy have been staggering. By tying aid to compliance with U.S.-dictated economic and social policies, Washington ensured that entire economies remained structurally dependent on American capital, unable to achieve true self-sufficiency. The myth of “free aid” masked a reality in which local industries were undercut, agricultural production was distorted, and economic sovereignty was systematically eroded.

The impact of USAID's covert interventions has not been confined to population control. The agency has played a critical role in orchestrating political destabilization, funding opposition movements, and ensuring that American corporate interests dictate the economic policies of recipient nations. From the Maidan coup in Ukraine to efforts to undermine Venezuela’s government, and the Dirty War in Syria that ultimately led to the recent ouster of Assad, USAID has long functioned as a mechanism of regime change, its operations cloaked in the language of development

Musk, DOGE, and the Future of Financial Control

Now, a new model of control is emerging—one that replaces the old tools of covert intervention with direct technological and financial dominance. Musk’s access to Treasury payment systems, his role in shaping government efficiency, and his push to transform X into an “everything app” all point to a future where the lines between state power and corporate influence are irreversibly blurred.

The latest revelations expose the extent of this consolidation. A 25-year-old engineer, Marko Elez, formerly of SpaceX and X, has been granted direct administrative access to critical Treasury Department systems responsible for 20% of the U.S. economy—including Social Security, veterans' benefits, and federal payrolls. Elez reportedly has the ability to alter, block, or delete payment processes, a level of control that even senior government officials typically lack. This is not mere efficiency—this is private-sector dominance over the financial arteries of the state.

At its core, Musk’s ambition is not merely about restructuring government operations—it is about controlling the very infrastructure of financial transactions. USAID may have relied on economic coercion through foreign aid, but Musk’s vision extends to the creation of a digital financial ecosystem where control over banking data, payment processing, and government disbursements converges under his influence.

The parallels between NSSM 200’s strategic population management and Musk’s financial ambitions are unsettling. Just as Kissinger saw unchecked population growth as a threat to American resource security, Musk’s control over Treasury operations suggests a new form of economic gatekeeping—one that integrates state policy with privatized surveillance and digital control.

Documents obtained by investigative reporters now reveal that Musk’s DOGE operatives have already rewritten Treasury’s payment systems to create "new paths to block payments.” These changes appear designed to increase Musk’s discretionary control over federal disbursements, potentially allowing him to starve programs he deems wasteful—without Congressional approval. It is no stretch to argue that Musk now effectively possesses the ability to defund entire agencies at will. Are we witnessing the rise of financial population control—where an unelected corporate mogul dictates who gets paid, which agencies survive, and what the priorities of government should be?

His Grok AI scoring system on X already hints at the framework of a social credit system, one that could be tied to financial transactions, government benefits, and even social mobility. And yet, paradoxically, Musk has positioned himself as a champion of “free speech” and an opponent of centralized control. This contradiction should not be dismissed—it is the exact formula by which public trust is manipulated.

The full implications of Musk’s involvement in federal financial infrastructure remain to be seen. Let me be clear: I am no defender of the Deep State. I hold no illusions about the integrity of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, or the entrenched bureaucratic apparatus that has long served elite interests under different administrations. However, what is unfolding now is not a remedy to that corruption—it is a hostile corporate coup that consolidates even greater power in the hands of an unelected billionaire with direct access to the financial lifelines of the state. I do not take sides in this power struggle. I reject both the technocratic elite that has long manipulated the system and the new wave of corporate oligarchy spearheaded by Musk and his allies. My concern is not for the preservation of the old order, but for the tremendous danger inherent in this unprecedented takeover.

While I have previously argued that a well-designed Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) could serve as a stabilizing force in an AGI-driven economy—facilitating financial inclusion, eliminating private banking monopolies, and enabling more democratic fiscal policy—the prospect of a CBDC under the de facto control of someone like Musk is profoundly alarming. My prior writings have explored the potential of a publicly-managed CBDC as a necessary step toward a post-scarcity economy, yet here we see the very real danger of financial centralization when concentrated in private hands. This contradiction—between the promise of financial reform and the specter of unchecked corporate control—is one I continue to grapple with. But what is clear is this: the tools of control are evolving. USAID’s move to the State Department is not a retreat, but a realignment. The age of covert interventionism is giving way to a more direct, more technologically embedded form of dominance.

The implications stretch beyond government finances. Musk’s AI-driven governance model is now infiltrating government software itself. Former Tesla executive Thomas Shedd, now overseeing technology transformation at the General Services Administration (GSA), has publicly confirmed that AI agents are being deployed to recode federal systems, including identity verification mechanisms. This raises urgent concerns about financial surveillance, AI-generated security vulnerabilities, and even the potential insertion of digital backdoors into federal databases.

The backlash has been swift. Lawsuits have flooded in against Musk’s takeover of the Treasury, and bipartisan legislators are drafting emergency measures to curb his influence. Protests have erupted outside federal buildings, with signs declaring, "Nobody Elected Elon." Yet, Musk’s network remains undeterred. The question is no longer whether the tools of interventionism are evolving—but whether the last barriers against private financial dictatorship are being dismantled in real time.

A Precursor to Further Investigation

This essay has revisited NSSM 200 as a lens through which to examine the continuity of U.S. interventionist policy. But the story does not end here. The recent actions surrounding USAID and Musk’s ascension to government influence warrant a far deeper exploration—one that this piece has only begun to outline.

In a forthcoming investigation, we will delve further into Musk’s ambitions, the dangers of financial surveillance, and the implications of privatized governance. If USAID was the covert arm of economic coercion in the 20th century, Musk’s Treasury access and digital influence may well define the mechanisms of control in the 21st.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. Only the methods evolve.