Elon Musk's private security team deputies lacked required federal training
Newly released emails show U.S. Marshals waived federal training requirements for Elon Musk's security deputies while he led DOGE, allowing unqualified bodyguards to carry federal credentials.
Objective Facts
Members of Elon Musk's private security team were deputized as federal agents in February 2025 even though some of the billionaire's guards lacked the required training and law enforcement experience, according to newly released government emails. At least some members of his detail needed waivers because they had not successfully completed a "basic law enforcement training program" or did not possess at least one year of law enforcement experience with an agency that had general arrest authority. Rich Kelly, the Marshals Service's associate director for operations, authorized the waivers three days later. The deputization allowed them to carry weapons in some federal buildings and continue protecting him. The waivers came to light through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Democracy Forward, a progressive advocacy group.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Progressive advocacy group Democracy Forward cited 2025 emails obtained from the Marshals Service showing that the agency allowed members of Musk's security detail to skirt basic requirements necessary to be deputized as federal agents. President Donald Trump's biggest campaign donor was allowed to convert some of his personal security guards into federal officers despite an obvious lack of credentials. Left-leaning outlets framed this as evidence of special treatment and institutional corruption. In response to Elon Musk's paranoia about supposed threats on his life, the U.S. Marshals Service deputized members of his security detail despite a lack of qualifications. Jeff Bezos does not have deputized Marshals carrying his bags. Bill Gates does not walk into government meetings flanked by men with federal law enforcement credentials obtained on a three-day timeline. Private citizens, no matter how wealthy or how threatened, have always been expected to handle their own security within the bounds of existing law. This latest revelation about Musk's security speaks to several overlapping patterns of disturbing behavior by the Trump administration: shameless cronyism, a willingness to lower federal standards and empower underqualified officers, and a palpable fear of the public. The current administration has shown no interest in revisiting the arrangement, and the Marshals Service has not publicly indicated any plans to revoke the deputizations. Congressional oversight committees, which would normally be the venue for scrutiny of this kind, have shown limited appetite for investigating anything connected to Musk or DOGE.
Right-Leaning Perspective
No substantive right-leaning or conservative media coverage of this specific April 2026 disclosure has been located. Major conservative outlets, including Fox News, do not appear to have covered the newly released FOIA documents and training waiver details as of April 7, 2026. The Trump administration and U.S. Marshals Service did not respond to requests for comment. Musk himself declined to comment. Without official statements or conservative media framing, no genuine right-leaning position on the waivers can be documented from available sources.
Deep Dive
This story illustrates a significant asymmetry in media coverage and a potential accountability gap. Just months before the Musk deputization in February 2025, the Justice Department's inspector general found in a September 2024 audit report that the Marshals Service had deputized people who were ineligible and had deputized others for questionable purposes. In response, the service pledged to update its procedures to ensure it was complying with federal rules. The decision to waive standards for Musk's team came immediately after that pledge, creating what critics view as a credibility crisis for the agency. The factual foundation is clear: the U.S. Marshals Service approved a request that it said came from the White House in February 2025, and Kelly, a career official, was the agency's third-in-command and retired in September, not responding to requests for comment. After news of the decision broke, a lawyer for Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., emailed the Marshals Service expressing unease and asking "what kind of liability exposure USMS will face if something goes awry?" This documented concern from a Democratic senator represents institutional anxiety about the decision, but it did not result in public action or reversals. What remains unresolved: First, it's not clear when the Marshals Service ended the special deputation of Musk's security detail or whether it has done so. Second, no Trump administration official or conservative commentator has publicly justified the waiver in detail as of April 7, 2026. The absence of right-leaning media coverage or official comment is itself noteworthy—it may reflect either acquiescence or a strategic choice not to engage on a weak issue. Third, Congressional oversight committees, which would normally be the venue for scrutiny of this kind, have shown limited appetite for investigating anything connected to Musk or DOGE, suggesting Republican committee control may be limiting oversight even in a divided Congress.