Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: Elon Musk’s DOGE Pursues Partisan Agenda

Project 2025: Elon Musk’s DOGE Pursues Partisan Agenda

CEO of Tesla and SpaceX Elon Musk leaves the stage holding a chainsaw after speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on February 20, 2025 in Oxon Hill, Maryland.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025. Now that Donald Trump’s second term The Fulcrum has started Part 2 of the series has commenced.

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, with this information being used 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 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 is 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 to extend 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 and Prevention (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. And they fired 3,400 workers and paused funding at the U.S. 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 are 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.

Samples of Phase 2 articles about Project 2025

Samples of Phase 1 articles about Project 2025

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

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less