Economists and civil rights advocates raise alarms about the potential dismantling of critical public infrastructure after billionaire advisor reveals plans to target USPS and Amtrak.

Musk’s “Corporate Takeover” Vision Raises Constitutional Questions

Billionaire Elon Musk’s recent comments about treating the federal government like a “corporate takeover at scale” have triggered widespread concern among constitutional scholars, public service advocates, and everyday Americans who rely on essential government services.

During a Wednesday meeting with Morgan Stanley investors, Musk outlined his vision for dramatically reducing the federal government’s footprint by privatizing longstanding public institutions. “Logically we should prioritize anything that can reasonably be privatized,” Musk told the group, specifically mentioning the United States Postal Service and Amtrak as prime targets.

“This isn’t just about cutting costs—it’s about fundamentally reshaping the relationship between citizens and their government,” said Dr. Amanda Rivera, professor of public policy at Georgetown University. “The postal service isn’t just any institution. It’s explicitly authorized in the Constitution and has served as a critical equalizer, ensuring all Americans, regardless of location or economic status, have access to communication and commerce networks.”

The Postal Service: A 250-Year American Institution Under Threat

The United States Postal Service handles approximately 128.9 billion pieces of mail annually and serves nearly 163 million delivery points across the country. Unlike most federal agencies, it operates without taxpayer funding, instead relying on the sale of postage and services to fund its $77 billion annual operations.

Last month, Trump administration officials signaled intentions to dissolve the USPS governing board and place it under Commerce Department control—a move legal experts believe would violate federal law. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests reveal preliminary plans to segment USPS operations, potentially selling profitable urban routes to private carriers while reducing service to rural communities.

“Privatizing the postal service would be devastating for rural America,” explained James Thornton, former postmaster and current director of the Rural Postal Coalition. “Private companies have no incentive to deliver to remote areas at affordable rates. We’ve already seen this play out in other countries that have privatized their mail systems—rates skyrocket, service declines, and the most vulnerable communities are left behind.”

The USPS employs approximately 516,000 career workers, making it one of the nation’s largest employers and a significant source of stable, middle-class jobs for minorities and veterans. According to Department of Labor statistics, approximately 39% of postal workers are people of color, and nearly 18% are military veterans.

“These aren’t just jobs—they’re pathways to economic stability for hundreds of thousands of American families,” said Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). “Privatization inevitably leads to workforce reductions and deterioration of labor conditions.”

Amtrak: Essential Transportation Network at Risk

Amtrak, which serves more than 32 million passengers annually across 46 states, has also been named as a privatization target. The national passenger railroad has seen record ridership in recent years and serves as a critical transportation lifeline for communities with limited options.

Transportation policy experts note that passenger rail systems worldwide typically require public subsidies because they provide essential public benefits that don’t appear on balance sheets—including reduced highway congestion, decreased carbon emissions, and economic development along service corridors.

“The notion that Amtrak should be profitable misunderstands its fundamental purpose,” said Dr. Robert Chen, transportation economist at MIT. “We don’t expect highways to generate profits—we understand they’re public infrastructure that enables economic activity. Rail should be viewed the same way.”

Chen points to countries like the United Kingdom, where rail privatization led to significantly higher fares, reduced service to smaller communities, and fragmented planning that compromised system efficiency and safety.

The Broader Privatization Agenda and Its Implications

Musk’s targeting of these specific agencies appears to be part of a broader privatization blueprint being developed through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the controversial cost-cutting initiative that has operated largely outside normal government oversight mechanisms.

Despite the administration’s claims that Musk serves only as an advisor, President Trump acknowledged during Tuesday’s joint session address that DOGE is “headed up by Elon Musk,” contradicting Justice Department assertions about Musk’s limited role.

Sources within the Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity, described an increasingly chaotic process where DOGE representatives have demanded detailed operational information from dozens of federal agencies without following established government review protocols.

“What we’re seeing is not careful governance reform but a rushed dismantling of institutions that took generations to build,” said former OMB director Marcus Johnson. “The consequences of these decisions will long outlast this administration.”

Public Service vs. Private Profit: The Fundamental Debate

The push to privatize government functions rests on the premise that market forces inevitably deliver greater efficiency than public management. However, research from the National Academy of Public Administration suggests outcomes vary significantly depending on the service and implementation.

“When essential services are privatized, three things typically happen,” explained Dr. Sarah McKenzie, who studies public administration at the University of Michigan. “First, costs are shifted rather than reduced—from taxpayers broadly to individual users, often at higher rates. Second, service becomes inconsistent, with premium options for those who can pay and degraded options for those who cannot. Third, public accountability disappears as operations move behind corporate walls.”

Historical examples of privatization efforts reveal mixed results. While some limited contracting arrangements have improved specific processes, comprehensive privatization of essential services has often resulted in higher long-term costs, reduced service quality, and significant public backlash.

What Comes Next: Legal and Legislative Battles Ahead

Legal experts anticipate any attempts to privatize constitutionally-established services like the postal system would face immediate court challenges. Additionally, many federal agencies operate under legislative mandates that would require congressional action to fundamentally restructure.

“There are significant legal guardrails that prevent unilateral executive branch action in many of these areas,” explained constitutional law professor Daniel Weinberg. “The administration may discover that dismantling government isn’t as simple as restructuring a corporation.”

Congressional oversight committees have already announced hearings to examine the legal and operational implications of the privatization agenda. Representative Katie Porter (D-CA) has requested detailed records of all DOGE communications regarding USPS and Amtrak, citing concerns about transparency and conflicts of interest.

“The American people deserve to know who’s making decisions about essential services they rely on, and whose interests are being served,” Porter stated in her request.

As these privatization plans move forward, millions of Americans who depend on these services—from small business owners shipping products to rural residents receiving medications by mail to passengers traveling on Amtrak’s national network—face an uncertain future shaped increasingly by private-sector priorities rather than public service mandates.

---