Microsoft government dubbes on its products with free. Could the stars of Elon Musk be the same?

A few weeks ago, my colleague Doris Burke sent me a story from the New York Times that gave us Deja Fu.

I mentioned the piece This was Starlink, the Internet -run satellite provider, as the Trump administration officials, the “donor” internet service to improve wireless communication and receive cells at the White House.

The donation baffled some former officials who were transferred in the story. But we immediately surprised us as the potential repetition of Trump’s era to maneuver tried and real business that we spent months in the reports last year. in This investigationWe focused on deals between Microsoft and Biden Management. At the heart of the arrangements, there was something that most consumers understood in an interlocutor: usually for “free” hunting offers.

Microsoft began providing “free” cyber security promotions to the federal government and consulting services in 2021, after President Joe Biden pressed technology companies to help boost electronic defenses in the country. Our investigation revealed that the White House showed outwardly, as it was known within Microsoft, wins a more sophisticated and movement agenda. The company knew that hunting is that once the free trial period ends, the federal customers who accepted the offer and stabilized the promotions will be truly closed in keeping them because the transformation into a competitor at that stage will be expensive and educated.

The former Microsoft employees told me that the company’s offer was closer to the drug dealer who is linking users with free samples. One of them said: “If we give you crack, and you will take the crack, you will enjoy the shape.” “Then, when the time comes to pick up the fissure, the final users will say,” Don’t take it away from me. “You will have to pay me.”

What is already expected microsoft internally. When free experiments ended, the vast areas of the federal government kept promotions and began to pay the higher subscription fees, and to lock billions in the company’s future sales.

Microsoft said that all agreements with the government “have been fully followed up to federal laws and regulations” and that its only goal during this period is to “enhance the security position of federal agencies that were constantly targeting by representatives of the developed state threats.”

But experts in government contract told me that the company’s maneuvers were legally weak. They circumvented the process of providing competitive bids, which are mainly of government purchases, and closed their competitors from competing for profitable federal actions, and thus the suffocation of innovation in this industry.

After reading the Times story about Starlink’s donation of the White House, I again prepared with these experts.

“It does not matter whether Microsoft last year, Starlink today or another company tomorrow.” Jessica TelipmanAssociate Dean of Government Procurement Studies at the Faculty of Law at George Washington University. “Anytime you do this, it is a rear door on competition operations that ensure that we have the best goods and services from the best sellers.”

Usually, in the process of providing competitive bids, the government seeks proposals from sellers for the goods and services they want to buy. Then these sellers make their proposals to the government, which theoretically choose the best option in terms of quality and cost. Girls defraud this entire process.

However, to hear the Minister of Commerce, Howard Lottenic, I tell her, the Trump administration does not just want to normalize such donations but encourage them throughout Washington.

Last month, while appearing Silicon Valley Podcast “All-inHe relied on his concept of a “homogeneous” seller “giving the product to the government.” Later, he added: “You don’t have to sign the conflict model and all these things because you do not work with the government. You just give things to the government. You literally give yourself. You are not looking for anything. You don’t take any money.”

Since President Donald Trump took office in January, Musk, who was classified as a non -paid “private government employee”, presented an offer to provide his services to the president and products from his companies to the government.Without any cost of taxpayers“The donation of the White House was just a step. 4000 stationsWithout any cost, to the Federal Aviation Administration for the installation of Starlink Internet Satellite.

During our Microsoft’s investigations, the sales representative told me that inside the company, the explicit “final game” was to convert government users to pay subscriptions that were promoted after the free experience and eventually gaining the market share, Azure, its cloud platform. It is not clear what is the end game for Musk and Starlink. He did not answer the questions via email.

Federal law has long tried to restrict the government donations, in a large part to maintain spending on spending.

At least after returning to the nineteenth century, the executive branch staff entered decades without asking for the necessary financing from Congress, which was supposed to enjoy the authority of the portfolio. The lawmakers did not want taxpayers in contact with his spending that Congress was not allocated, so they approved the counter -deficiency law, a copy of it is valid today. One part restricted the “volunteer services” to protect from the supposed volunteer later the demands of government payment.

However, in 1947, the General Office for Accounting (which is now called the Government Accountability Office), which provides opinions on financial laws, exempted: providing what has become known as “unjustified services” will be allowed as long as the two parties agree “in writing and in advance” that the donor waives the payment.

Microsoft used this exemption to transfer consultative services worth $ 150 million to its government agents, and to enter the so -called unjustified services agreements. To abandon actual cyber security products, the company provided the current federal customers “100 % discount” for up to a year.

It is not clear whether the unjustified services agreements are present for musk gifts. The White House and FAA did not answer the written questions. He did not do Spacex. responsible The New York Times was told Last month, a lawyer overseeing ethics cases in the office of the White House lawyer examined the stars donating to the White House.

For experts you consulted, written agreements may help companies comply with the mission of law, but certainly not in his spirit. He said: “Just because there is a technical legal thing that does not make it correct.” Eve LeonFour contract lawyer as a federal government purchase specialist.

Lyon said that the consequences of accepting the gift, regardless of how it was transferred, could be long -term, and “government officials may not understand” fear at first. “

Tillipman agreed, saying that the risk of amplification obligations is especially clear when it comes to technology. She said that users depend on one provider, which led to the “seller’s lock”. It is too early to know what will come from Starlink donations, but the White House’s offer from Microsoft provides a preview of what is possible. Installing its goal at the beginning, the world’s largest software company continues to expand its mark throughout the federal government while avoiding competition.

A source of Microsoft’s investigation was called in the past year to catch up with the knees. He told me that with the government’s imprisonment at Microsoft, competitors are still closing the chances of federal contracting. When I requested an example, the 2024 document of the Defense Information Systems Agency, or Disa, which deals with the Ministry of Defense. The document described “an exception to the fair opportunity” in purchasing a variety of new information technology services, saying that the matter of $ 5.2 million “will be issued directly to Microsoft Corporation”.

The justification? The shift from Microsoft to another provider “will lead to additional time, effort, costs and performance effects.” Desa did not answer the questions via email.