As Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest individual, invested over $250 million in Donald Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign, the US president enlisted Musk to take charge of an ambitious new initiative: the “Department of Government Efficiency” (Doge). This initiative aimed to streamline the federal government and cut wasteful spending. Although Musk had no prior experience in government operations, he quickly raised expectations for dramatic results.
Musk, ever confident, projected that the government could save up to $2 trillion through this initiative, boasting about its potential during a campaign rally at Madison Square Garden just before Trump’s re-election bid. However, after Trump returned to office in January, the grand plans of Doge soon collided with the harsh realities of bureaucracy. Tens of thousands of federal workers were laid off, causing significant disruption across agencies, followed by a series of legal challenges.
Just four months into the administration, Musk abruptly exited the project. Within six months, reports surfaced that Doge had been dismantled. Musk later admitted that he had no interest in repeating the experience.
“Fast and Careless” Approach
Former White House official Elaine Kamarck, an expert on government reform, was highly critical of the Doge initiative. She called it “complete nonsense from the start,” adding that Musk’s original savings estimate of $2 trillion quickly shrank to a much more modest $1 trillion. Even that figure seemed overly ambitious as Doge encountered severe mismanagement.
Kamarck pointed out that the initial chaos generated by Doge’s push to cut costs resulted in multiple mistakes and inefficiencies. For example, by the time Musk’s team made its cuts, it was found that the government had fired and rehired thousands of employees. This chaotic approach starkly contrasted with more measured efforts like the National Performance Review, which Kamarck managed during the Clinton administration.
“We managed to cut the government by 420,000 people over seven years,” Kamarck explained. “But we did it in a structured, thoughtful way, working with agencies and understanding their missions. This idea of ‘moving fast and breaking things’ from Silicon Valley doesn’t work in the government.”
A Short-Lived Venture
By March, Musk had downgraded his expectations to a more attainable $1 trillion in savings, a goal he still thought was within reach. However, by December, reports suggested that Doge had only saved $214 billion—far short of the ambitious promises. For many, this figure appeared riddled with inaccuracies and exaggerations. In the early days of the project, the haste with which cuts were made caused long-lasting disruption.
Many began questioning whether Doge was still operational at all. A statement from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) director Scott Kupor suggested that the initiative was no longer in existence, though an official Doge account on X (formerly Twitter) contradicted this claim. Meanwhile, Musk had moved on. Reflecting on the initiative in a podcast, Musk described Doge as “a little bit successful” but quickly added, “I don’t think I’d do it again. I would have focused more on my companies instead.”
Unnecessary and Ineffective?
Experts also questioned the necessity of Doge from the start. Philip G. Joyce, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland, argued that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had already been performing similar functions—documenting over $1.45 trillion in savings since 2002—making the creation of Doge unnecessary.
Joyce also critiqued the Trump administration’s approach, suggesting that Doge wasn’t designed to truly improve efficiency. Instead, it appeared to be a politically motivated effort to eliminate programs and operations the administration disagreed with, without consulting Congress. “It was clear from the beginning that they didn’t understand how the federal budget worked,” Joyce said. “And it became even clearer when they started making cuts to agencies.”
Transparency and Accountability Issues
Doge’s activities also raised serious concerns about transparency and data security. One of the most significant controversies emerged when Musk’s team targeted the Social Security Administration (SSA), making false claims about fraud and age-related abuse within the system. Chuck Borges, the SSA’s chief data officer at the time, resigned in protest, filing a whistleblower complaint about the exposure of sensitive Social Security data.
Borges argued that Doge had violated the agency’s data security protocols by transferring Social Security data to an unsecured cloud environment. He warned that this posed a significant risk to personal data, and his concerns have continued to resonate as legal battles over Doge’s impact are ongoing.
Moreover, many of the staff involved in Doge have since become embedded within various federal agencies, complicating transparency and accountability. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit against Doge, alleging violations of public record laws. Donald K. Sherman, CREW’s executive director, pointed out the stark contrast between the administration’s claims of success and its reluctance to provide the public with concrete information about Doge’s operations.
The Legacy of Doge
Despite its swift collapse, the Doge initiative had a lasting impact on both the federal government and the public perception of efficiency reforms. While Musk and his team may have failed to deliver on their grand promises, the disruption and chaos they sowed in the process continue to resonate. For many, Doge remains a cautionary tale about the dangers of applying Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” mentality to complex, bureaucratic systems like the US government.
In the end, Musk’s brief tenure overseeing Doge proved to be a highly ambitious, but ultimately flawed, experiment. His decision to move on and refocus on his companies highlights the inherent challenges in navigating government reform without the necessary experience or understanding. While the project may be officially over, its legacy lingers, shaped by the lessons learned from its hurried and chaotic execution.
