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.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.