Elon Musk’s ambitious plan to reduce government spending has not lived up to the high expectations he set for it. Initially, Musk aimed to save $2 trillion, equivalent to the total federal deficit. However, he has since scaled back this target to just $150 billion.
Experts suggest one of the main issues was the lack of experienced individuals who truly understood government operations. Instead, Musk relied heavily on tech-oriented staff, which may have led to poor decision-making and ineffective cuts. While he did eliminate thousands of jobs, these measures did not significantly shift the overall trend of federal spending. Reports indicate that money is exiting government accounts even more quickly than in recent years.
Cato Institute vice president Alex Nowrasteh remarked, “They set themselves up for failure by making promises that were impossible to keep.” He added that a more knowledgeable team could have avoided many “unforced errors” during the restructuring.
At a recent White House event alongside former President Donald Trump, Musk reaffirmed his commitment to achieving at least $1 trillion in savings. He expressed optimism, stating, “This is not the end of DOGE; it’s just the beginning,” and promised that the DOGE team would only grow stronger.
However, the approach has also seen unintended consequences. Cuts to immigration judges came at an inopportune time for the Trump administration’s deportation efforts. Similarly, removing technologists from the Bureau of Land Management undermined initiatives aimed at oil exploration, an important priority for the administration.
Despite these missteps, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, viewed Musk’s efforts positively. He believes that the issues surfaced during this process could lead to significant reforms in the future. “Finding the problem is just the start; it’s up to Congress to build on that momentum,” Norquist said.
In contrast, Elaine Kamarck, a former official in the Clinton administration, pointed out that their efforts were more methodical and targeted than Musk’s chaotic approach. The Clinton initiative, which saved $136 billion (or over $240 billion today), was structured carefully and involved seasoned government professionals.
Kamarck warned that Musk’s strategy might lead to overlooked problems that could create larger issues down the line. She argued that inadequate preparation could result in crises affecting vital services, ultimately harming future administrations.
As Musk exits his role, the question remains: can any lasting change emerge from these tumultuous efforts to reform government spending?
