Ben Olinsky: Point
Deception and destruction, Musk and DOGE’s real goal
Waste, fraud and abuse. These are the seemingly magic words the world’s richest man incants to justify the chainsaw he’s taking to our government in the form of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
However, as Elon Musk steps back to a part-time role, the question remains: Were these words a mantra or mere flimflam?
The Trump administration’s stated goal of reducing government waste, fraud and abuse is broadly popular among Americans, who experience the government’s bureaucracy firsthand and may not feel like their problems are addressed.
Still, the face of the administration’s purported efforts to combat waste, fraud and abuse is widely unpopular, falling to a 33 percent approval rating. Where’s the disconnect between the diagnosis and the treatment?
The answer lies in Musk’s strategy: Make sweeping, careless cuts that don’t minimize waste but decimate the government’s ability to preserve Americans’ safety, health and well-being.
The National Weather Service staff was slashed. Scientists who review life-saving drugs were fired, alongside scientists who monitor and respond to infectious disease outbreaks. The secretary of Veterans Affairs announced massive funding cuts, ending contracts that help cover medical services, fund cancer programs, recruit doctors and provide burial services to veterans. Is this waste, fraud or abuse?
The real agenda came into focus in January when the president illegally dismissed 18 federal inspectors general whose job is to uncover waste, fraud and abuse, giving even policymakers in both parties pause. He then terminated the head of the Office of Special Counsel — an ethics watchdog who protects whistleblowers — and gutted the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section. Is this about reducing waste, fraud and abuse — or greasing the skids for those who want to profit off taxpayers?
It’s similarly troubling how quickly Musk gained power over a government that influences his business interests. For example, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint in 2024 against Tesla’s Buffalo plant for illegally interfering with workers’ organizing. In February, DOGE stated it would close or downsize the NLRB’s Buffalo office.
DOGE has also fought for access to Americans’ most sensitive information, from Social Security databases to IRS tax data. There’s no transparency about who accessed which systems, for what purpose and whether cybersecurity protocols were disabled to let them in. How can Americans know their private data hasn’t been compromised or used for personal gain? Was their information used to train Musk’s new AI model or to scope out competitors’ sensitive business strategies? We have no way of knowing.
Musk is stepping away from Washington — at least several days a week— but the Trump administration’s DOGE agenda is far bigger than one man.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has fired countless doctors, scientists and experts, and now there are credible reports that the FDA plans to end routine food safety inspections. Secretary of State Marco Rubio tweeted that plans for reducing and restructuring his department were created under Trump’s leadership and “at my direction.”
And it’s not just the Trump administration. Congress has approved government spending cuts so ambitious that it’s unlikely they’ll be able to pass a budget that doesn’t include hundreds of billions in Medicaid cuts. While congressional Republicans argue their proposals target waste, fraud and abuse, in reality, they will rip away healthcare coverage from millions of vulnerable Americans — children, the poor and those with pre-existing conditions. If they genuinely wanted to eliminate fraud in the system, the administration wouldn’t have laid off government investigators tasked with rooting it out.
Thankfully, DOGE has fallen dramatically short of Musk’s stated goal of $1 trillion in cuts. For all the chaos DOGE has caused, its online tracker claims only $160 billion in savings during Musk’s tenure — and only around $30 billion can be verified with credible receipts. In less than six months since Musk took the reins, DOGE’s actions may also have cost taxpayers $135 billion.
Rooting out waste, fraud and abuse is a worthy goal, but it’s not what Musk or the Trump administration are doing. They’re repeating those words to justify destroying the good parts of government — the parts people rely on to meet their basic needs and will miss dearly when they’re gone.
Ben Olinsky is the senior vice president for Structural Reform and Governance Policy at the Center for American Progress. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.
Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.: Counterpoint
DOGE’s swift but not-so-terrible sword
Critics swing between accusing the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) of overreach and declaring it a failure at cutting government.
Here are some reality checks:
DOGE-like efforts are not new. George H.W. Bush’s Council on Competitiveness was created to ease regulatory burdens. Led by Vice President Dan Quayle, it worked to slow or stop costly rules and made agencies take the economic effects more seriously. While some saw it as business-friendly, mirroring criticisms of DOGE today, it helped put regulatory costs on the map.
The scope of DOGE, like that of the executive branch, is inherently limited. Like most executive orders, the directive establishing DOGE states it “shall be implemented consistent with applicable law.” Flashy but temporary, DOGE is set to dissolve by July 4, 2026.
DOGE can’t abolish agencies without Congress, but the president can scale back operations and deflate executive branch entities.
For example, over at the Department of State, Secretary Marco Rubio has reportedly retooled USAID, the controversial agency tasked with administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance. Shuttering programs that lack explicit statutory authority and refocusing agencies on core missions is a legitimate use of executive power. While Article I vests the power of the purse in Congress, Article II grants the president limited discretion in how appropriated discretionary funds are prioritized and administered.
And let’s not forget that former President Joe Biden embedded DEI and climate policy throughout the federal government. Biden brought us “whole-of-government” regulatory crusades, unilateral (and unjustified) student loan forgiveness, and pandemic-era eviction moratoria — arguably more radical than DOGE.
Now, the Trump administration wants to change programs like DEI that are ostensibly non-regulatory and funded at the executive’s discretion.
The Trump administration and DOGE have also been criticized for workforce reductions. People may not recall that the Reagan administration slashed the bureaucracy by 100,000, as chronicled by Donald J. Devine, Reagan’s Office of Personnel Management director and author of “Reagan’s Terrible Swift Sword.”
Devine notes that under Article II, the president has broad authority to execute the law and manage the executive branch — including reorganizing and reducing the federal workforce. Trump’s E.O. 14210 introducing a 4-for-1 attrition model and E.O. 14170 prioritizing merit-based hiring together positions DOGE as a legitimate continuation of the Reagan tradition. Probationary employees and non-essential functions are subject to fewer protections and can be reduced for budgetary or organizational efficiency, so long as due process is respected.
Legal battles over Trump-era spending and regulatory authority will likely extend well beyond DOGE’s July 2026 expiration. However, the fact remains that DOGE represents a creative and successful use of executive power to shrink the state, claiming $165 billion in savings. While short of the $2 trillion Musk touted in October, the cuts helpfully strike at some of Washington’s most entrenched in-house lobbying and NGO tax-funded networks. It is hoped that the long-term consequence will prove even more significant than the dollar figure today.
Ironically, Trump’s own “swampy” ideas — like antitrust crusades, tariffs, a sovereign wealth fund, campus speech codes, and even a DOGE savings dividend — threaten to lay the groundwork for future progressive regulatory grabs, eclipsing DOGE’s deregulatory accomplishments. Viewed in that light, DOGE hasn’t gone nearly far enough.
Wayne Crews is the Fred L. Smith fellow in regulatory studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.
