Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Elon Musk’s DOGE implements Project 2025, endangering Americans' safety

Opinion

Donald Trump and Elon Musk
President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk sit ringside at a UFC fight in November.
Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC

With President Donald Trump’s blessings, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been poking around in numerous federal agencies with a mission to cut fraud and waste from government bureaucracy. That’s a worthwhile project.

However, significant evidence is piling up that Musk and DOGE are actually pursuing a different private agenda that not only could cause much damage to the efficient functioning of the federal government but also might endanger Americans’ safety.


Allow me to back up for a second. Prior to the November 2024 election, there was much national discussion about Project 2025, a 900-page conservative manifesto to remake the U.S. government during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. As a candidate, Donald Trump backpedaled away from Project 2025 because many of its directives were unpopular.

But now that President Trump has begun his second term, it seems apparent that Project 2025, which was compiled by pro-Republican think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, is in fact the blueprint for his administration. And Musk’s DOGE is the tip of the spear that is aiming to overturn the federal apple cart.

Musk has dispatched his DOGE lieutenants to scrutinize sensitive personnel and payment information in government computer systems, using this information as the basis for widespread dismissals, layoffs, and salary buy-outs of thousands of federal employees from numerous agencies.

To be clear, it is an admirable goal to cut waste and fraud from government bureaucracy. The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog agency, has estimated that the U.S. government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually from fraud and improper payments.

But is it just a coincidence that nine of the government agencies targeted in Musk's crosshairs were highlighted in the Project 2025 report? And that a number of the authors of Project 2025 are now highly-placed Trump administration officials?

Project 2025 repeatedly claims that the targeted federal agencies suffer from bureaucratic bloat. But there is another revealing pattern that has emerged, regarding which agencies are on the chopping block.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Republican director of the Congressional Budget Office, says the agencies that Musk and Trump have targeted account for a tiny fraction of the $7 trillion federal budget. Instead, warns Holtz-Eakin, “they are going into agencies they disagree with" for ideological reasons. “They are not going to go into agencies that are doing things they like."

Bill Hoagland, a former Republican director of the Senate Budget Committee for more than 20 years, says, "The playbook has not been for the dollar savings, but more for the philosophical and ideological differences conservatives have with the work these agencies do."

So, it appears that DOGE’s attacks are being driven, not by a good-faith effort to save taxpayer dollars, but by a partisan assault on federal agencies long despised by conservatives. And that’s according to two veteran Republican budget experts. Many conservatives have long seen these targeted agencies as pushing liberal agendas.

For example, Trump and his allies have accused one of their targeted agencies, the Department of Education, of foisting "woke" policies, such as advocating for transgender players on girls' sports teams. Another target, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is a science-based federal agency that has been harshly criticized for allegedly exaggerating climate change threats. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been the principal federal agency extending assistance to countries recovering from natural disasters and engaging in democratic reforms. Not that long ago, it enjoyed bipartisan support, including from Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Suddenly, Rubio is singing a different tune as the Trump administration accuses USAID of sending foreign aid to some countries it doesn’t consider a U.S. ally. Musk has repeated baseless conspiracies that USAID was part of a system involved in "money laundering" taxpayer dollars "into far-left organizations."

Of particular concern is that the partisan wielding of the layoffs axe could cause a number of dangers for everyday Americans. Already there have been large dismissals at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—several thousand employees, about a tenth of its workforce —just as flu cases spike and a potential bird flu pandemic is raising alarms. Large layoffs have hit the Department of Health and Human Services, including half the “disease detectives” at the Epidemic Intelligence Service, who play a crucial role in identifying public health threats.

Also targeted has been the Federal Aviation Administration with hundreds of employees fired, who maintain critical air traffic control, only weeks after the horrific midair collision over Washington, D.C. that killed 67 people. Trump officials also fired more than 300 staffers at the National Nuclear Security Administration, apparently unaware that this agency oversees America’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Additionally, they fired 3,400 workers and paused funding at the National Forest Service, which plays a critical role in fighting catastrophic forest fires even as wildfires grow more frequent and dangerous.

Elon Musk and his DOGE assistants, apparently, have decided to fire as many federal workers as they can without making any effort to find out what these workers actually do and whether dismissing them might actually make the American public less safe.

The precedents for many of these actions were found in Project 2025. The manifesto claimed that many federal government agencies had been taken over by “cultural Marxism” and a liberal elite who were using taxpayer dollars to push a political agenda that is "weaponized against conservative values." So, Musk and DOGE are trying to drain what they see as liberal influences out of the federal agencies, as if preventing forest fires, airplane crashes, and pandemics is a lefty plot. In reality, the actual concealed DOGE goal appears to be the implementation of crucial parts of Project 2025.

Given this bait-and-switch, it should come as no surprise that the cuts made so far constitute a tiny fraction of federal spending. For all the furor, DOGE’s efforts have saved only an estimated $16 billion, which is a small fraction—0.22%—of the $7 trillion federal budget. At this rate, Musk’s efforts will never reach the original goal of $1 to $2 trillion in savings.

Cutting federal waste and fraud is admirable and necessary. But using that goal as a fig leaf for a partisan vendetta may well cause lasting damage and undermine Americans’ safety and security.

Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less