Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Elon Musk's X Factor Won’t Fix Big Government

Elon Musk's X Factor Won’t Fix Big Government

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk speaks with former president Donald Trump during a campaign event at the Butler Farm Show, Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Butler, Pa.

Getty Images, The Washington Post

Elon Musk’s reputation as a disruptor, transforming industries like automobiles and space travel with Tesla and SpaceX, will be severely tested as he turns his attention to government reform through the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE). DOGE lacks official agency status and depends on volunteers, raising concerns about its credibility. Musk claims his team of young techies can slash federal spending by $2 trillion, but history casts serious doubt on private-sector fixes for big government. So far, he has largely avoided legal scrutiny with the GOP-led Congress’ help, while handing sensitive operations to his team of “experts.” What could possibly go wrong?

Musk’s plan involves embedding these techies in federal agencies to find inefficiencies. His confidence comes from past successes, such as cost-cutting at X (formerly Twitter) through drastic measures like layoffs. There’s no denying that private-sector innovation has improved government services before—cloud computing, AI-driven fraud detection, and streamlined procurement have saved billions. But running a government isn’t like running a business. It’s not just about efficiency or profit—it’s about providing essential services, enforcing laws, and balancing competing interests to ensure a measure of fairness.


Efforts to streamline government are not new. Vice President Al Gore’s "Reinventing Government" initiative in the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, had similar goals but was blocked by bureaucracy and competing priorities, making little progress. Similarly, Presidents Carter and Reagan launched ambitious initiatives, but none made more than a small dent. Musk may hope that his outsider status will allow him to bypass these constraints, but without direct authority to implement changes, DOGE must rely on Congress to act. Congress, however, has its own agenda and is unlikely to prioritize Musk’s ideas.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Equally daunting, his claim to cut trillions from the budget rests on shaky ground. Meaningful federal budget cuts require addressing Social Security and Medicare, which account for nearly 77% of projected spending growth over the next decade. Millions of Americans depend on them, making significant changes highly unlikely. Even if Musk finds operational savings, they won’t touch the core drivers of government spending. This part of the budget lies outside of DOGE's purview—though it is unclear just what its purview is. It is doubtful that the Trump administration would expend scarce political capital on an effort that is almost bound to fail.

Reforming these programs requires bipartisan support and the willingness to tackle politically sensitive issues. These programs are often called the “third rail” of politics—touching them can end careers. Even if Musk were serious about addressing waste, he would have to navigate a political minefield that has stymied far more seasoned policymakers.

As for his claim to eliminate wasteful spending, Musk has embedded inexperienced tech bros in federal agencies to identify inefficiencies. This raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability—key pillars of democracy. While fresh perspectives can sometimes bring improvements, government is fundamentally different from a private corporation. Critics argue that DOGE's informal nature and Musk’s leadership could foster cronyism and partisanship, undermining its goal of improving efficiency. The lack of clear oversight and potential misuse of power make this initiative highly questionable.

Musk has already scaled back expectations, shifting his focus from deficit reduction to deregulation. While deregulation can boost economic growth, it often comes with trade-offs: weaker environmental protections, reduced worker rights, and diminished public safety. These consequences may not sit well with the public, especially if regulatory rollbacks disproportionately harm lower-income communities. Moreover, deregulation does not necessarily lead to a more efficient government—it just shifts costs elsewhere, whether to state governments, consumers, or the environment.

For Musk to make meaningful, bipartisan progress, DOGE should focus on targeted reforms that improve efficiency without undermining fairness. Key reforms include:

  • Reducing redundant federal programs: A systematic review of overlapping or outdated programs could identify opportunities for consolidation, eliminating inefficiencies while ensuring that essential services for vulnerable populations remain intact.
  • Enhancing digital governance: AI-driven automation and advanced data analytics could streamline bureaucratic processes, reduce paperwork, and enhance decision-making efficiency. However, automation also risks job losses, particularly in clerical and administrative positions, which must be addressed to avoid creating new economic burdens.
  • Improving procurement practices: Government contracts often suffer from inflated costs and inefficiencies. Implementing stricter oversight, competitive bidding processes, and leveraging private-sector best practices could lead to significant savings while safeguarding fair labor practices and preventing job losses in economically vulnerable communities.
  • Strengthening performance-based accountability: Introducing key performance indicators (KPIs) across federal agencies could help ensure that government departments meet efficiency and effectiveness benchmarks. However, safeguards must be in place to ensure that cost-cutting measures do not disproportionately harm marginalized or low-income communities.
  • Expanding public-private partnerships: Collaborating with the private sector on infrastructure, technology, and service delivery could foster innovation and reduce government expenditures. However, these partnerships must be structured to ensure they do not create barriers to access for low-income individuals or communities that rely on public services.
  • Modernizing outdated government systems: Many government agencies still rely on decades-old technology, leading to inefficiencies, security vulnerabilities, and high maintenance costs. Upgrading digital infrastructure, streamlining data management, and implementing modern cybersecurity measures would improve government services while saving taxpayer money in the long run.

These initiatives could enhance government operations while protecting vulnerable populations and are more likely to garner Democratic lawmakers’ support. However, such ideas conflict with the priorities of the Trump administration, which seems more interested in cutting services to pay for tax cuts. Furthermore, even if Musk’s ideas gained traction, his focus on efficiency alone overlooks the complex political landscape that determines what policies succeed or fail.

One can view Musk’s venture into government reform as a bold experiment in applying private-sector principles to public problems by overlooking one main problem: government isn’t a corporation, and effective governance requires more than just business acumen. Success in the public sector depends on collaboration, transparency, and a deep respect for democratic principles (Musk seems to have a problem with this). Even the most innovative thinkers need the right tools, allies, and context to succeed. Reining in big government is a complex puzzle—one that can’t be solved with bold claims alone.

Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.

Read More

Just the Facts: 2025 Canada vs. United States Tariff War

Trucks head to the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Canada and Detroit, Michigan on the first day of President Donald Trump's new 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico on March 4, 2025, in Windsor, Canada.

Getty Images, Bill Pugliano

Just the Facts: 2025 Canada vs. United States Tariff War

Our ongoing series, “Just the Facts,” strives to approach news stories with both an open mind and skepticism, so we may present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we look to remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces.

On Sunday, March 9th, The Fulcrum ran a story called “Just the Facts: Canadian Tariffs”. Since Sunday, there has been a mind-boggling flurry of activity in the ongoing trade battle between the United States and Canada.

Keep ReadingShow less
Welcome to the Musk era of unchecked conflicts

Elon Musk speaks during CPAC-DC at the Gaylord National Resort in Oxon Hill, M.D., on Feb. 20, 2025.

Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

Welcome to the Musk era of unchecked conflicts

When the computers arrived at City Hall in January of 2002, they were the talk of the town.

Known as “The Bloomberg,” the system of flat-screen terminals used to crunch real-time market data made famous by their namesake mogul Mike Bloomberg, were sent to populate the new mayor of New York City’s wall-less office, known to his staffers as The Bullpen.

Keep ReadingShow less
Indian talents in the US: the brain drain dilemma
white microscope on top of black table
Photo by Ousa Chea on Unsplash

Indian talents in the US: the brain drain dilemma

As India marches towards its ambitious goal of becoming a “Viksit Bharat” by 2047, as proclaimed by Narendra Modi, a critical challenge threatens this vision: the ongoing exodus of its brightest minds. India aspires to become a global power, but its current development seems to rely more on its population size than on its achievements in science, technology, art, innovation, and the like. This strategic vacuum is particularly glaring in the discussion around the H-1B visa. The Indian government has always attached great importance to the US H-1B visa, regarding it as part of its national interest. However, what is more worth thinking about is: why does India actively support the outflow of outstanding talents from the country?

A report “The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2024” released by the US National Science Foundation shows that in 2021, foreign-born scientists and engineers accounted for about 19% of all science and engineering workers in the United States, and this proportion jumped to about 43% among scientists and engineers with doctoral degrees. Among them, India has become the largest source of foreign-born science and engineering workers, accounting for 29%. “Our dependence on foreign talent, especially our over-reliance on talent from strategic competitors such as India, is like a double-edged sword. It has promoted our scientific and technological progress, but it has also exposed our weaknesses,” in response to this phenomenon, Divyansh Kaushik of the Institute of the Federation of American Scientists, emphasized. Why can’t a country that can cultivate a large number of internationally competitive talents keep them in the country? According to statistics, 75% of H-1B visa holders in the United States are from India, which reflects the structural problems of India’s local job market.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Figurines of manual workers with stacks of coins

Getty Images/Glow Images

Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Among the international trade issues making headlines is President Trump’s recent announcement to abandon current U.S. law regarding small, low-value packages containing products purchased by Americans from overseas. The initial Executive Order was paused just days later. But the threat remains, making damaging economic repercussions imminent.

The process for such small-dollar shipments is de minimis entry. The term means “pertaining to tiny or trivial things,” emphasizing why its usage only applies to goods under a lower-priced threshold.

Keep ReadingShow less