by Ifrah Daber
Elon Musk, standing as the current richest person in the world. His wealth amounts to over 300 billion dollars, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index as of February 2025. He found his success in companies like Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, and Xcorp, along with the social media app, formerly known as Twitter.
Due to this success, his strong shift into politics and especially his outspoken support for President Donald Trump in this most recent election was sudden, especially given his moderate views in the past. He tweeted in 2018. “To be clear, I am not conservative.” He stated that he was independent and voted for Democratic candidates for many years. So when he opened his wallet to give over 250 million dollars to Trump and his allies campaigning last year, it was directly opposed to his past words and opinions.
These new opinions and support, also came with a new position in government, a brand new department, focused on making the governments spending more efficient. Appropriately, they named it The Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE for short.
Given Musk’s new position in the Department of Government Efficiency, some Americans have seen this as exactly what the government needs to handle the high costs of living and lower their taxes. However, others see this as completely unethical and a blatant disregard for middle-class Americans in favor of the 1%.
To understand both sides, one has to understand exactly what both sides believe and how Musk’s actions are perceived, along with what exactly he has been doing since his appointment as a special government employee.
A special government employee is a role in Congress that allows branches of government to bring in employees temporarily for specific roles. They are usually used as consults and can only work for no more than 130 days in a year.
So what power does that give Musk? Mostly, he is the same as any government employee. He can be given information, including sensitive information, if it is relevant to his job. So he was fully in his right as a special government employee to have access to the Treasury Department payment system, since he’s employed to try to find out how to make the government, specifically the economic side, more efficient.
Some lawyers are concerned about this role for Musk, especially given the possibility of him breaking the rules and laws of his position. Specifically, critics worry about the Hatch Act, a federal law that was created in 1939 that prohibits any department employees, including special government employees, from engaging in partisan political activity while performing their duties or on federal property.
On Feb 11, Musk went to the Oval Office wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, which might have been a violation of the Hatch Act. However, the Office of Special Counsel, which would be the one to enforce the law, has not made an official announcement on Musk’s choice of hat wear.
However, the Government Executive, a news site, has quoted Laura Nagel, an employment lawyer who represents federal employees, to say that she views the use of “political paraphernalia” as a violation of the Hatch Act. So there is a debate on the topic, but nothing official has come of it so far.
But Musk’s wardrobe aside, most of his supporters care more about what he has promised and not what he chooses to wear. Musk has taken the responsibility and his focus on cutting waste, using the Department of Efficiency as his way to do so. At the first Trump Cabinet meeting, Musk spoke of how the American debt is unsustainable and that America will go broke without some sort of drastic change.
“That’s the reason I’m here,” Musk stated in regard to the national debt. He said he was confident that he could find 1 trillion in savings. He claimed that his efforts were motivated by saving money for the taxpayers.
This position is one that many hear and naturally support, especially given the rising cost of living for average Americans. A poll done by J.L. Partners in late February found that around 60% of Americans viewed their tax dollars as wasted by the government, and 67% supported DOGE’s purpose to save their tax money. In addition, a Harvard Caps/ Harris poll found that over 70 percent of Americans support the U.S. Government Agency focused on the efficiency initiatives, and along with 60 percent believe that DOGE is helping cut major government spending.
However, 58% of voters in Harvard Caps/Harris say that DOGE should not have access to sensitive information on Americans that benefit from government programs, such as names or social security numbers.
DOGE has claimed to make large progress in this; they posted receipts on their website “doge.gov” having a total of 65 billion dollars in savings, but there are discrepancies in the actual amount that has been saved, including mislabeling amounts, claiming they saved 8 billion in ICE contracts when it was 8 million, as well as reportedly listing the same 650 million savings from a contract with USAID multiple times as new savings. Along with other inherent errors, many were called out by media organizations like CBS and Politico.
Musk has prided himself for being transparent, which is the original reason he created the website. He acknowledged these errors at the Oval Office: “Some of the things I say will be incorrect and that should be corrected.”
Despite these inconsistencies, he still praises his organization and himself. He spoke at the Conservative Political Action Committee, wielding a gifted chainsaw, claiming it was a metaphor for how he would “take a chainsaw to bureaucracy.”
So, what exactly have DOGE and Musk accomplished?
Starting early, Musk started using tactics that are similar to when he took over Twitter, now “X”. He immediately tried to downsize, to get rid of any employees and programs that were deemed to be a waste, it being “obvious,” he’s quoted as saying. He sent out emails demanding that employees of multiple departments list the tasks they completed, as well in some instances revealing names and titles of people that he wants to cut, making them public targets for the people. Musk and Trump have also tried to freeze Congress-approved funds, an illegal act.
But what likely is the most controversial is that it’s clear that those who support DOGE want fast change and are willing to deal with the “temporary hardships” that Musk stated would come for ordinary citizens. A perfect example of the “ends justify the means” is that even if there are some mistakes, to many, it is seen as a necessary investment.
Though there are still many against Musk and DOGE, many of their reasons are through the lens of political ethics and the possible red tape that DOGE has crossed in pursuit of it’s goal.
New Mexico representative Melanie Stansbury spoke out directly about how she condemned the actions of DOGE. She said in her opening statements at a Subcommittee meeting, “Donald Trump and Elon Musk are recklessly and illegally dismantling the federal agencies, shuttering federal agencies, firing federal workers, withholding funds vital to safety and well-being of our communities.”
Other Representatives, such as California representative Robert Garcia, said, “We should not stand by as the richest man on the planet gives himself and his companies huge tax cuts while the American people get absolutely nothing.”
Many of these ethical concerns are made worse given how much Musk’s companies have received in funding from the government, along with how closely his companies work with the government. Elon Musk has reportedly received at least 38 billion in federal contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits, according to data from the Washington Post, including a reported 456 million dollar loan from the Department of Energy. Throughout the years, the amount of money he’s received has grown.
The White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, when asked about the possible conflicts of interest, simply said that Musk would determine for himself if there are potential conflicts with his business. With very few checks and balances, many are anxious that Musk could run rampant with no one to stop him.
This has led to many states suing Musk and President Trump on the basis that the authority he had over DOGE was unconstitutional.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes even referred to DOGE as “the whims of a single unelected billionaire.” Mayes argued that the Appointments Clause of the Constitution was violated when Trump created DOGE since the agency was created without congressional approval and gave Musk too much power as a special government employee.
“He has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of separation of powers.”
Currently, 14 states have sued Trump and Musk over what they believe is an abuse of power. The large concern for them is clear: the idea of such a wealthy man in government is unethical, and he is given too many privileges.
There is also controversy of the programs he’s already cut, from slashing over 80 independent research contracts at the Institute of Education Science, firing FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) workers, the explanation being that the organization was allegedly spending money on housing migrants in hotels. DOGE also fired workers at the National Institute of Health that focused on dementia research.
The USAID organization, that is focused on providing humanitarian resources around the world, was targeted by DOGE, Musk claiming it to be a criminal organization, and that funds are used for deadly programs. Though many of USAID’s programs that are frozen greatly impacts millions around the world. This including but not limited to, clinics in Africa for HIV patients, and the “Safe Mobility Offices” in many South America countries, a plave were migrants could apply to be legal citizens.
Though DOGE’s said goal is to get rid of waste and corruption, many who oppose Musk would argue that these programs are anything but waste, that they are vital to those who depend on aid from the United States.
Which side you stand on depends on how you view Musk, how you view his position, and if you believe that he can make ethical decisions given his position. It’s clear that the people need a change, that there is frustration in the cost of living, but is DOGE the answer to that? Or is this hatchet style of cutting funding going to do more harm in the long run for the people? We the people will just have to wait and see.
thehyphennews.com 