Elon Musk’s brief yet impactful tenure in the Trump administration lasted only 129 days, but it was filled with controversy and significant changes that reverberated throughout the federal government. Appointed to head up the state’s brand new Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), Musk was tasked with cutting state spending by 20 percent. His initially ambitious targets were updated as time went on. He began with a pledge to cut a minimum of $2 trillion, then lowered it to $1 trillion, before ultimately agreeing to cut just $150 billion.
Musk’s maniacal focus on slashing federal spending ignited nasty fights throughout the administration and outside it. His actions resulted in scrapping more than 80% of the programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This shocking cut has cast a long shadow of doubt over the future of U.S. international aid and humanitarian efforts.
The tech mogul’s arrival in the White House underscored the increasing power of disinformation in shaping government dialogue. Musk’s public comments included unfounded theories, such as claims regarding stolen gold reserves from Fort Knox, which raised eyebrows among political analysts and commentators. Just like Musk and Trump did, they all unequivocally denied any wrongdoing. They claimed that Musk’s interests as a corporate titan had no conflicts of interest in office.
Elon Musk’s growing corporate empire is comprised of numerous companies—all of which actively pursue contracts with both U.S. and foreign governments. This connection prompted ethical concerns about his capacity to oversee federal spending cuts with a critical eye when balancing his business interests. Even so, Musk made front page news when he upstaged every cabinet meeting, showing his power and access inside the new administration.
Press reports indicated that a battle royal soon erupted between Musk and other cabinet members. They feared Doge’s suggested cuts would cripple their departments. Despite public pledges of unity within the “Trump 2.0” administration, Musk’s controversial decisions highlighted underlying divisions among those in power.
Musk seemed to accept that mass firings would of necessity cause errors, a tone-deaf defense that proved infuriating to riders, advocates, and government stakeholders alike. In October of 2021, Doge beamed, its pilot had produced significant savings. It took credit for saving $175 billion from selling assets, canceling leases and grants, and eliminating fraud and improper payments. Together, those items in the report advanced a net loss of 260,000 employees from the federal workforce. Prior to Musk’s draconian cuts, the workforce had topped 2.3 million employees.
Of the early reaction to Musk’s endeavor, reactions were wildly at odds, with some praising his results, while others condemned the methods used to achieve those results. Public critics warned that the huge cuts would endanger critical government operations, including social safety nets and poverty alleviation programs. Musk’s disruption-first approach to government innovation initiated a battle royale in state legislatures. He then reproached a bill for subverting Doge’s ambition for fiscal propriety.