doge

WASHINGTON — It has been four months since Elon Musk, President Trump’s bureaucratic demolition man, abandoned Washington in a flurry of recriminations and chaos.

But the Trump administration’s crusade to dismantle much of the federal government never ended. It’s merely under new management: the less colorful but more methodical Russell Vought, director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget.

Vought has become the backroom architect of Trump’s aggressive strategy — slashing the federal workforce, freezing billions in congressionally approved spending in actions his critics often call illegal.

Now Vought has proposed using the current government shutdown as an opportunity to fire thousands of bureaucrats permanently instead of merely furloughing them temporarily. If any do return to work, he has suggested that the government need not give them back pay — contrary to a law Trump signed in 2019.

Those threats may prove merely to be pressure tactics as Trump tries to persuade Democrats to accept spending cuts on Medicaid, Obamacare and other programs.

But the shutdown battle is the current phase of a much larger one. Vought’s long-term goals, he says, are to “bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will” and “deconstruct the administrative state.”

He’s still only partway done.

“I’d estimate that Vought has implemented maybe 10% or 15% of his program,” said Donald F. Kettl, former dean of the public policy school at the University of Maryland. “There may be as much as 90% to go. If this were a baseball game, we’d be in the top of the second inning.”

Along the way, Vought (pronounced “vote”) has chipped relentlessly at Congress’ ability to control the use of federal funds, massively expanding the power of the president.

“He has waged the most serious attack on separation of powers in American history,” said Elaine Kamarck, an expert on federal management at the Brookings Institution.

He’s done that mainly by using OMB, the White House office that oversees spending, to control the day-to-day purse strings of federal agencies — and deliberately keeping Congress in the dark along the way.

“If Congress has given us authority that is too broad, then we’re going to use that authority aggressively,” Vought said last month.

Federal judges have ruled some of the administration’s actions illegal, but they have allowed others to stand. Vought’s proposal to use the shutdown to fire thousands of bureaucrats hasn’t been tested in court.

Vought developed his aggressive approach during two decades as a conservative budget expert, culminating in his appointment as director of OMB in Trump’s first term.

In 2019, he stretched the limits of presidential power by helping Trump get around a congressional ban on funding for a border wall, by declaring an emergency and transferring military funds. He froze congressionally mandated aid for Ukraine, the action that led to Trump’s first impeachment.

Even so, Vought complained that Trump had been needlessly restrained by cautious first-term aides.

“The lawyers come in and say, ‘It’s not legal. You can’t do that,’” he said in 2023. “I don’t want President Trump having to lose a moment of time having fights in the Oval Office over whether something is legal.”

Vought is a proponent of the “unitary executive” theory, the argument that the president should have unfettered control over every tentacle of the executive branch, including independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve.

When Congress designates money for federal programs, he has argued, “It’s a ceiling. It is not a floor. It’s not the notion that you have to spend every dollar.”

Most legal experts disagree; a 1974 law prohibits the president from unilaterally withholding money Congress has appropriated.

Vought told conservative activists in 2023 that if Trump returned to power, he would deliberately seek to inflict “trauma” on federal employees.

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work.”

When Vought returned to OMB for Trump’s second term, he appeared to be in Musk’s shadow. But once the flamboyant Tesla chief executive flamed out, the OMB director got to work to make DOGE’s work the foundation for lasting changes.

He extended many of DOGE’s funding cuts by slowing down OMB’s approval of disbursements — turning them into de facto freezes.

He helped persuade Republicans in Congress to cancel $9 billion in previously approved foreign aid and public broadcasting support, a process known as “rescission.”

To cancel an additional $4.9 billion, he revived a rarely used gambit called a “pocket rescission,” freezing the funds until they expired.

Along the way, he quietly stopped providing Congress with information on spending, leaving legislators in the dark on whether programs were being axed.

DOGE and OMB eliminated jobs so quickly that the federal government stopped publishing its ongoing tally of federal employees. (Any number would only be approximate; some layoffs are tied up in court, and thousands of employees who opted for voluntary retirement are technically still on the payroll.)

The result was a significant erosion of Congress’ “power of the purse,” which has historically included not only approving money but also monitoring how it was spent.

Even some Republican members of Congress seethed. “They would like a blank check … and I don’t think that’s appropriate,” said former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

But the GOP majorities in both the House and Senate, pleased to see spending cut by any means, let Vought have his way. Even McConnell voted to approve the $9-billion rescission request.

Vought’s newest innovation, the mid-shutdown layoffs, would be another big step toward reducing Congress’ role.

“The result would be a dramatic, instantaneous shift in the separation of powers,” Kettl said. “The Trump team could kill programs unilaterally without the inconvenience of going to Congress.”

Some of the consequences could be catastrophic, Kettl and other scholars warned. Kamarck calls them “time bombs.”

“One or more of these decisions is going to blow up in Trump’s face,” she said.

“FEMA won’t be capable of reacting to the next hurricane. The National Weather Service won’t have the forecasters it needs to analyze the data from weather balloons.”

Even before the government shutdown, she noted, the FAA was grappling with a shortage of air traffic controllers. This week the FAA slowed takeoffs at several airports in response to growing shortages, including at air traffic control centers in Atlanta, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth.

In theory, a future Congress could undo many of Vought’s actions, especially if Democrats win control of the House or, less likely, the Senate.

But rebuilding agencies that have been radically shrunken would take much longer than cutting them down, the scholars said.

“Much of this will be difficult to reverse when Democrats come back into fashion,” Kamarck said.

Indeed, that’s part of Vought’s plan.

“We want to make sure that the bureaucracy can’t reconstitute itself later in future administrations,” he said in April in a podcast with Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist who was slain on Sept. 10.

He’s pleased with the progress he’s made, he told reporters in July.

“We’re having fun,” he said.

Dogecoin (DOGE -8.63%) is falling on Monday, down 10.6% in the last 24 hours as of 5:47 p.m. ET. The drop comes as the S&P 500 lost 0.5%, and the Nasdaq Composite lost 0.3% today.

Dogecoin and the rest of the crypto market are down after last Friday’s huge spike following Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s address to the nation.

Rate cuts could be coming

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell spoke from the Fed’s annual Jackson Hole summit on Friday, shedding light on its plans for rate cuts in the near future. Powell painted a complicated picture of the current economy with signs of a slowdown in hiring happening even as other signs point to the possibility that inflation is heating up.

Ultimately, he believes that the economy has proven to be resilient, and though he didn’t confirm it explicitly, he seemed to indicate rate cuts were coming in September. Investors reacted strongly to the news, and markets on Friday were green. More speculative investments like Dogecoin saw an outsized spike — lower rates tend to lead to riskier assets performing comparatively well.

Image source: Getty Images.

Today, investors appear to be weighing how much the Fed will cut. Just as Dogecoin saw an outsized spike on Friday, it saw an outsized dip today.

Dogecoin is meant to be taken lightly

Dogecoin is a meme coin. It is not a serious investment. The coin’s “tokenomics” are highly inflationary. That means over time, unless more and more people invest consistently, its price will continue to move downward.

This was created as a joke and a way to have fun — that is exactly how it still should be treated. There are plenty of crypto projects with proven track records of value like Bitcoin and Ethereum. Choose these or projects like them if you are serious about investing in crypto.

Aug. 6 (UPI) — Two 15-year-olds were arrested in an alleged attack on a former Department of Government Efficiency employee.

Edward Coristine, 19, whose nickname is “Big Balls,” was allegedly surrounded and assaulted by a group of about 10 teens near his car early Sunday morning. He said he shoved his date into the car for her safety and faced the teens, when they began attacking him.

Police patrolling the area saw the event, and they stepped out of their vehicle. The teens fled on foot, but two were caught, identified by Coristine and arrested. They were charged with unarmed carjacking. The two teens were a 15-year-old male and a 15-year-old female. The others are still at large.

Coristine, a software engineer, was one of the most known people associated with the DOGE effort, which attempted to cut government spending and eliminate waste in bureaucracy.

Elon Musk, who worked closely with DOGE before stepping away from his work with the Trump administration, also detailed the attack on X.

“A few days ago, a gang of about a dozen young men tried to assault a woman in her car at night in DC,” Musk said. “A [DOGE] team member saw what was happening, ran to defend her and was severely beaten to the point of concussion, but he saved her.”

Emergency medical services did not transport anybody as part of the incident, D.C. Fire and EMS told CBS News.

The police report also said a black iPhone 16 was stolen.

President Donald Trump renewed threats to have the federal government take over Washington, in response to the incident.

“Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control,” Trump said.

“Local ‘youths’ and gang members … are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming and shooting innocent citizens,” he added, “at the same time knowing that they will be almost immediately released.

“The most recent victim was beaten mercilessly by thugs,” Trump said. “Washington, D.C., must be safe, clean and beautiful for all Americans and, importantly, for the world to see.”

He said the federal government would have no choice but to take control of the capital and “put criminals on notice.”

Local police reported a 35% reduction in crime in 2024, which set a 30-year low, The Hill reported.

This year, reported crimes in Washington are lower than in 2024, which would establish a new 30-year low if the trend continues.

Trump and Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser have met several times since the Nov. 5 election.

The president has said he and the mayor have an amicable relationship, and in a March 28 executive order, created the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force.

That task force includes representatives from several federal agencies and federal law enforcement, who are tasked with cleaning up the city by working with local officials.

Such efforts include removing homeless encampments, supporting law enforcement, removing threats to public safety and streamlining the process for residents to get concealed carry permits for firearms.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans will test the popularity of Department of Government Efficiency spending cuts this week by aiming to pass President Trump’s request to claw back $9.4 billion in public media and foreign aid spending.

Senate Democrats are trying to kill the measure but need a few Republicans uncomfortable with the president’s effort to join them.

Trump’s Republican administration is employing a rarely used tool that allows the president to transmit a request to cancel previously approved funding authority. The request triggers a 45-day clock under which the funds are frozen. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands. That clock expires Friday.

The House already has approved Trump’s request on a mostly party line 214-212 vote. The Senate has little time to spare to beat the deadline for the president’s signature. Another House vote will be needed if senators amend the legislation, adding more uncertainty to the outcome.

Here’s a closer look at this week’s debate.

Trump has asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it’s due to receive during the next two budget years.

The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense.

The corporation distributes more than two-thirds of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System to support national programming.

The potential fallout from the cuts for local pubic media stations has generated concern on both sides of the political aisle.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said he’s worried about how the rescissions will hit radio stations that broadcast to Native Americans in his state. He said the vast majority of their funding comes from the federal government.

“They’re not political in nature,” Rounds said of the stations. “It’s the only way of really communicating in the very rural areas of our state, and a lot of other states as well.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said that for the tribal radio stations in her state, “almost to a number, they’re saying that they will go under if public broadcasting funds are no longer available to them.”

To justify the spending cuts, the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have cited certain activities they disagree with to portray a wide range of a program’s funding as wasteful.

In recent testimony, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought criticized programming aimed at fostering diversity, equity and inclusion. He said NPR aired a 2022 program entitled “What ‘Queer Ducks’ can teach teenagers about sexuality in the animal kingdom.” He also cited a special town hall that CNN held in 2020 with “Sesame Street” about combatting racism.

Targeting humanitarian aid

As part of the package, Trump has asked lawmakers to rescind about $8.3 billion in foreign aid programs that aim to fight famine and disease as well as promote global stability.

Among the targets:

— $900 million to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases and strengthen detection systems to prevent wider epidemics.

— $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation as well as family reunification for those forced to flee their own country.

— $4.15 billion for two programs designed to boost the economies and democratic institutions in developing and strategically important countries.

— $496 million to provide humanitarian assistance such as food, water and healthcare for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts.

Some of the health cuts are aimed at the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which President George W. Bush, a Republican, began to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The program is credited with saving 26 million lives and has broad bipartisan support.

On PEPFAR, Vought told senators “these cuts are surgical and specifically preserve lifesaving assistance.” But many lawmakers are wary, saying they’ve seen no details about where specifically the administration will cut.

The administration also said some cuts, such as eliminating funding for UNICEF, would encourage international organizations to be more efficient and seek contributions from other nations, “putting American taxpayers first.”

U.S. leaders have often argued that aiding other nations through “soft power” is not just the right thing to do but also the smart thing.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Vought that there is “plenty of absolute nonsense masquerading as American aid that shouldn’t receive another bit of taxpayer funding,” but he called the administration’s attempt to root it out “unnecessarily chaotic.”

“In critical corners of the globe, instead of creating efficiencies, you’ve created vacuums for adversaries like China to fill,” McConnell told Vought.

Trump weighs in

The president has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the cuts.

He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corp. for Public Broadcasting.

“Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,” he said.

For individual Republicans seeking reelection, the prospect of Trump working to defeat them is reason for pause and could be a sign that the package is teetering.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) opted to announce that he would not seek reelection recently after the president called for a primary challenger to the senator when he voted not to advance Trump’s massive tax and spending cut bill.

Getting around a filibuster

Spending bills before the 100-member Senate almost always need some bipartisan buy-in to pass. That’s because the bills need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance. But this week’s effort is different.

Congress set up a process when Republican Richard Nixon was president for speedily considering a request to claw back previously approved spending authority. Under those procedures, it takes only a simple Senate majority to advance the president’s request to a final vote.

It’s a rarely employed maneuver. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, had some success with his rescissions request, though the final bill included some cuts requested by the president and many that were not. Trump proposed 38 rescissions in 2018, but the package stalled in the Senate.

If senators vote to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama.

Democrats see the president’s request as an effort to erode the Senate filibuster. They warn that it’s absurd to expect them to work with GOP lawmakers on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don’t like.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York offered a stern warning in a letter to colleagues: “How Republicans answer this question on rescissions and other forthcoming issues will have grave implications for the Congress, the very role of the legislative branch, and, more importantly, our country,” Schumer said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) took note of the warning.

“I was disappointed to see the Democrat leader in his recent Dear Colleague letter implicitly threaten to shut down the government,” Thune said.

The Trump administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Elon Musk said he’s carrying out his threat to form a new political party after his fissure with President Trump, announcing the America Party in response to the president’s sweeping tax cuts law.

Musk, once an ever-present ally to Trump as he headed up the White House advisory team, which he calls the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, broke with the Republican president over his signature legislation, which was signed into law Friday.

As the bill made its way through Congress, Musk threatened to form the “America Party” if “this insane spending bill passes.”

“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” Musk said Saturday on X, the social media company he owns. “Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”

The formation of new political parties is not uncommon, but they typically struggle to pull any significant support away from the Republican and Democratic parties. But Musk, the world’s richest man who spent at least $250 million supporting Trump in the 2024 election, could affect the 2026 elections determining control of Congress if he is willing to spend significant amounts of money.

His reignited feud with the president could also be costly for Musk, whose businesses rely on billions of dollars in government contracts and publicly traded company Tesla has taken a hit in the market.

It wasn’t clear whether Musk had taken steps to formally create the new political party. Spokespeople for Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, didn’t immediately comment Sunday.

As of Sunday morning, there were multiple political parties listed in the Federal Election Commission database that had been formed in the the hours since Musk’s Saturday X post with versions of “America Party” of “DOGE” or “X” in the name, or Musk listed among people affiliated with the entity.

But none appeared to be authentic, listing contacts for the organization as email addresses such as ” [email protected]″ or untraceable Protonmail addresses.

Musk on Sunday spent the morning on X taking feedback from users about the party and indicated he’d use the party to get involved in the 2026 midterm elections.

Last month, he threatened to try to oust every member of Congress who voted for Trump’s bill. Musk had called the tax breaks and spending cuts package a “disgusting abomination,” warning it would increase the federal deficit, among other critiques.

“The Republican Party has a clean sweep of the executive, legislative and judicial branches and STILL had the nerve to massively increase the size of government, expanding the national debt by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS,” Musk said Sunday on X.

His critiques of the bill and move to form a political party mark a reversal from May, when his time in the White House was winding down and the head of rocket company SpaceX and electric vehicle maker Tesla said he would spend “a lot less” on politics in the future.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who clashed with Musk while he ran DOGE, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that DOGE’s “principles” were popular but “if you look at the polling, Elon was not.”

“I imagine that those board of directors did not like this announcement yesterday and will be encouraging him to focus on his business activities, not his political activities,” he said.

Price writes for the Associated Press.

The thing about bullies is they don’t have real friends.

They have lieutenants, followers and victims — sometimes all three rolled into one.

Most of us learn this by about third grade, when parents and hard knocks teach us how to figure out whom you can trust, and who will eat you for lunch.

Elon Musk, at age 54 with $400 billion in the bank, just learned it this week — when his feud with our bully-in-chief devolved into threats that the president will have the South African native deported.

Speaking about Musk losing government support for electric cars, Trump this week warned that Musk “could lose a lot more than that.”

“We might have had to put DOGE on Elon,” Trump said, referencing Musk’s cost-cutting effort called the Department of Government Efficiency. “DOGE is the monster that … might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible?”

Yes, I know. Schadenfreude is real. It’s hard not to sit back with a bit of “told ya” satisfaction as we watch Musk — who has nearly single-handedly demolished everything from hurricane tracking to international aid for starving children — realize that Trump doesn’t love him.

But because Musk is the richest man in the world, who also now understands he has the power to buy votes if not elections, and Trump is grabbing power at every opportunity, there’s too much at stake to ignore the pitiful interpersonal dynamics of these two tantrumming titans.

What does it have to do with you and me, you ask? Well, there’s a potential fallout that is worrisome: The use of denaturalization against political enemies.

In case you’ve been blessedly ignorant of the Trump-Musk meltdown, let me recap.

Once upon a time, nine months ago, Musk and Trump were so tight, it literally had Musk jumping for joy. During a surprise appearance at a Butler, Pa., political rally (the same place where Trump was nearly assassinated), Musk leaped into the air, arms raised, belly exposed, with the pure delight of simply being included as a follower, albeit one who funneled $290 million into election coffers. Back then, Musk had no concern that it wasn’t his own dazzling presence that got him invited places.

By January, Musk had transitioned to lieutenant, making up DOGE, complete with cringey swag, like a lonely preteen dreaming up a secret club in his tree house. Only this club had the power to dismantle the federal government as we know it and create a level of social destruction whose effects won’t be fully understood for generations. Serious villain energy.

But then he got too full of himself, the No. 1 sin for a lieutenant. Somewhere along the line, Trump noticed (or perhaps someone whispered in the president’s ear) that Musk was just as powerful as he is — maybe more.

Cue the fallout, the big “see ya” from the White House (complete with a shoving match with another Trump lieutenant) and Musk’s sad realization that, like everyone else in a bully’s orbit, he was being used like a Kleenex and was never going to wind up anyplace but the trash.

So Musk took to his social media platform to start bashing on Trump and the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which passed in the Senate on Tuesday, clearing the way for our national debt to skyrocket while the poor and middle class suffer.

“If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day. Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE,” Musk threatened, conjuring up a new political party the same way he ginned up DOGE.

Musk even promised to bankroll more elections to back candidates to oust Trumpians who voted for the bill.

“And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” Musk wrote. Presumably before he leaves for Mars.

It was those direct — and plausible — threats to Trump’s power that caused the president to turn his eye of Sauron on Musk, flexing that he might consider deportation for this transgression of defiance. It might seem entertaining if Musk, who the Washington Post reported may have violated immigration rules, were booted from our borders, but it would set a chilling precedent that standing up to this president was punishable by a loss of citizenship.

Because the threat of deporting political enemies didn’t start with Musk, and surely would not end with him.

For days, Trumpians have suggested that New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, who was born in Uganda and became a U.S. citizen in 2018, should be deported as well, for the crime of backing policies that range in description from progressive to socialist to communist (pretty sure the ones labeling them communism don’t actually know what communism is).

On Tuesday, Trump weighed in on Mamdani.

“A lot of people are saying he’s here illegally,” Trump said, which of course, no one is except for Trump’s attack dogs. “We’re going to look at everything.”

Denaturalization for immigration fraud — basically lying or misrepresenting stuff on your official application — is nothing new. Obama did it, as did Trump in his first term, and it has a long history before that.

But combing the documents of political enemies looking for pretexts to call fraud is chilling.

“This culture of weaponizing the law to go after enemies, it’s something that is against our founding principles,” Ben Radd told me. He’s a professor of law and an expert in political science at UCLA.

“It is very much an abuse of executive power, but [Trump] gets away with it until there’s a legal challenge,” Radd said.

While Musk and Mamdani have the power to fight Trump in a court of law, if it comes to it, other naturalized citizens may not.

There are about 25 million such citizens in the United States — people who immigrated in the “right” way, whatever that means, jumped through the hoops, said their pledge of fealty to this country and now are Americans. Or so they thought.

In reality, under Trump, they are mostly Americans, as long as they don’t make him mad. The threat of having citizenship stripped for opposing the administration is powerful enough to silence many, in a moment when many immigrants feel a personal duty and impetus to speak out to protect family and friends.

Aiming that threat at Musk may be the opportunistic anger of a bully, and even seem amusing.

But it’s an intimidation meant to show that no one is too powerful to be punished by this bully, and therefore, no one is safe.

WASHINGTON — In a final push to prevent passage of President Trump’s signature legislation into law, Elon Musk, once his largest benefactor and later his top White House aide, threw the kitchen sink at his former boss.

The world’s richest man threatened to fund primary challenges against supporters of the bill “if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.” He threatened to fund the creation of a third party based on fiscal responsibility. And he accused the president of using the bill as a vehicle to defund the ability of courts to enforce contempt orders, making it all but impossible to hold him and his allies accountable for violating the law.

There is still a slim chance that Musk succeeds. But a Senate vote approving the bill on Tuesday brought Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” to the doorstep of passage. The only thing standing in its way now is a handful of Republican lawmakers in the House.

Trump reacted to Musk’s campaign on Tuesday with a pointed threat. The Department of Government Efficiency, a federal program Musk ran at the start of the administration that aimed to reduce federal spending, could be directed to gut Musk’s properties of federal contracts, the president warned.

“We might have to put DOGE on Elon,” Trump said. Musk owns SpaceX, an aerospace company with deep ties to NASA, as well as Tesla and the X social media platform. “You know what DOGE is? The monster that might have to go back and eat Elon — wouldn’t that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies.”

“If DOGE looks at Musk, we’re going to save a fortune,” Trump later added. “I don’t think he should be playing that game with me.”

The “Big Beautiful Bill” included several provisions that could have rankled Musk, including a phaseout of green energy tax credits passed during the Biden administration that have benefited companies like Tesla.

But Musk said his priority in the bill was not its impact on the electric vehicle market. Instead, his concern is its overall price tag — a ballooning of the federal debt over the next decades that he said fundamentally undermines his work in the administration.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the Senate version of the bill will add $4 trillion to the debt by 2034, and even more if Congress votes later on to remove a series of expiration dates built into the legislation.

Musk left the Trump administration at the end of his tenure as a special government employee in late May, honored in the Oval Office by Trump with a press conference and a custom embroidered key. But the men fell out dramatically days later, trading insults in an acrimonious public feud that included Musk taking credit for Trump’s election victory.

Even within the last few days, Trump has offered mixed messages on the state of his relationship with Musk, wishing him only the best in an interview with Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business.

By Tuesday morning, he was telling reporters that he would “take a look” at deporting Musk, a U.S. citizen.

“Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “and head back to South Africa.”

HOPLAND, Calif.  — On a sun-kissed hillside in remote Northern California, I watched in awe as a crackling fire I’d helped ignite engulfed a hillside covered in tall, golden grass. Then the wind shifted slightly, and the dense gray smoke that had been billowing harmlessly up the slope turned and engulfed me.

Within seconds, I was blind and coughing. The most intense heat I’d ever felt seemed like it would sear the only exposed skin on my body: my face. As the flames inched closer, to within a few feet, I backed up until I was trapped against a tall fence with nowhere left to go.

Alone in that situation, I would have panicked. But I was with Len Nielson, chief of prescribed burns for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, who stayed as cool as the other side of the pillow.

Like a pilot calmly instructing passengers to fasten their seat belts, Nielson suggested I wrap the fire-resistant “shroud” hanging from my bright yellow helmet around my face. Then he told me to take a few steps to the left.

And, just like that, we were out of the choking smoke and into the gentle morning sunlight. The temperature seemed to have dropped a few hundred degrees.

“It became uncomfortable, but it was tolerable, right?” Nielson asked with a reassuring grin. “Prescribed fires are a lot about trust.”

Dripping gasoline onto dry grass and deliberately setting it ablaze in the California countryside felt wildly reckless, especially for someone whose job involves interviewing survivors of the state’s all too frequent, catastrophic wildfires. But “good fire,” as Nielson called it, is essential for reducing the fuel available for bad fire, the kind that makes the headlines. The principle is as ancient as it is simple.

Before European settlers arrived in California and insisted on suppressing fire at every turn, the landscape burned regularly. Sometimes lightning ignited the flames; sometimes it was Indigenous people using fire as an obvious, and remarkably effective, tool to clear unwanted vegetation from their fields. Whatever the cause, it was common for much of the land in California to burn about once a decade.

“So it was relatively calm,” Nielson said, as the flames we’d set danced and swirled just a few feet behind him. “There wasn’t this big fuel load, so there wasn’t a chance of it becoming really intense.”

With that in mind, the state set an ambitious goal in the early 2020s to deliberately burn at least 400,000 acres of wilderness each year. The majority of that would have to be managed by the federal government, since agencies including the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service own nearly half of the state’s total land. And they own more than half of the state’s forests.

Cal Fire crew members set a prescribed burn near Hopland in Mendocino County.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

But California officials worry their ambitious goals are likely to be thwarted by deep cuts to those federal agencies by Elon Musk’s budget-whacking White House advisory team, dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. In recent months, the Forest Service has lost about 10% of its workforce to mass layoffs and firings. While firefighters were exempt from the DOGE-ordered staffing cuts, employees who handle the logistics and clear the myriad regulatory hurdles to secure permission for prescribed burns were not.

“To me, it’s an objective fact that these cuts mean California will be less safe from wildfire,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary of natural resources. He recalled how President Trump, in his first term, erroneously blamed the state’s wildfires on state officials who, Trump said, had failed to adequately “rake” the forests.

“Fifty-seven percent of our forests are owned and managed by the federal government,” Crowfoot said. If anybody failed, it was the president, he argued.

Larry Moore, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, said the job cuts won’t affect the agency’s fire prevention efforts.

The Forest Service “continues to ensure it has the strongest and most prepared wildland firefighting force in the world,” Moore wrote in an email. The agency’s leaders are “committed to preserving essential safety positions and will ensure that critical services remain uninterrupted.”

Cal Fire crew members plot out the direction and scope of a prescribed burn in Mendocino County.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Nevertheless, last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom added $72 million to the state’s forest management budget to bridge some of the gap expected to be left by federal agencies. But wildfire experts say that’s just a drop in the bucket. Doing prescribed burns safely takes a lot of boots on the ground and behind-the-scenes cajoling to make sure local residents, and regulators, are on board.

Because people get pretty testy when you accidentally smoke out an elementary school or old folks home, burn plans have to clear substantial hurdles presented by the California Environmental Quality Act and air quality regulators.

It took three years to get all the required permissions for the 50-acre Hopland burn in Mendocino County, where vineyard owners worried their world-class grapes might get a little too “smoky” for most wine lovers. When the big day finally arrived in early June, more than 60 firefighters showed up with multiple fire engines, at least one bulldozer and a firefighting helicopter on standby in case anything went wrong.

They gathered at the University of California’s Hopland Research and Extension Center, where students learn about ranching and wilderness ecology.

But this was no school project. A fire that began in the surrounding hills a couple of years ago threatened to trap people in the center, so the area being burned was along the only two roads that could be used to escape.

“We’re trying to create a buffer to get out, if we need to,” said John Bailey, the center’s director. “But we’re also trying to create a buffer to prevent wildfire from coming into the center.”

Smoke emanates from a prescribed burn in Mendocino County. (Josh Edelson / For The Times)

As the firefighters pulled on their protective yellow jackets and pants, and filled their drip torches with a mixture of diesel and gasoline, Nielson bent down and grabbed a fistful of the yellow grass. Running it through his fingers, he showed it to his deputies and they all shook their heads in disappointment — too moist.

Thick marine-layer clouds filled the sky at 7 a.m, keeping the relative humidity too high for a good scorching. In many years of covering wildfires, it was the first time I had seen firefighters looking bored and disappointed because nothing would burn.

By 8:45 a.m., the clouds cleared, the sun came out, and the grass in Nielson’s fist began to crinkle and snap. It was time to go to work.

The fire that would fill the sky and drift north that afternoon, blanketing the town of Ukiah with the familiar orange haze of fire season, began with a single firefighter walking along the edge of a cleared dirt path. As he moved, he made little dots of flame with his drip torch, drawing a line like a kid working the edges of a picture in a coloring book.

Additional firefighters worked the other edges of the field until it was encircled by strips of burned black grass. That way, no matter which direction the fire went when they set the center of the field alight, the flames would not — in most circumstances — escape the relatively small test patch.

On the uphill edge of the patch, along the top of a ridge, firefighters in full protective gear leaned against a wooden fence with their backs to the smoke and flames climbing the hill behind them. They’d all done this before, and they trusted those black strips of pre-burned grass to stop the fire before it got to them.

Their job was to keep their eyes on the downward slope on the other side of the ridge, which wasn’t supposed to burn. If they saw any embers drift past them into the “green” zone, they would immediately move to extinguish those flames.

Nielson and I were standing along the fence, too. In addition to the circle of pre-burned grass protecting us, we were on a dirt path about four feet wide. For someone with experience, that was an enormous buffer. I was the only one who even flinched when the smoke and flames came our way.

Afterward, when I confessed how panicked I had felt, Nielson said it happens to a lot of people the first time they are engulfed in smoke. It’s particularly dangerous in grass fires, because they move so fast. People can get completely disoriented, run the wrong way and “get cooked,” he said.

Grass fires are particularly dangerous, because they move so fast, says Cal Fire Staff Chief Len Nielson. People can get disoriented in the smoke, run the wrong way and “get cooked.”

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

But that test patch was just the warmup act. Nielson and his crew were checking to make sure the fire would behave the way they expected — pushed in the right direction by the gentle breeze and following the slope uphill.

“If you’re wondering where fire will go and how fast it will move, think of water,” he said. Water barely moves on flat ground, but it picks up speed when it goes downhill. If it gets into a steep section, where the walls close in like a funnel, it becomes a waterfall.

“Fire does the same thing, but it’s a gas, so it goes the opposite direction,” Nielson said.

With that and a few other pointers — we watched as three guys drew a line of fire around the base of a big, beautiful oak tree in the middle of the hillside to shield it from what was about to happen — Nielson led me to the bottom of the hill and handed me a drip torch.

Once everybody was in position, and all of the safety measures had been put in place, he wanted me to help set the “head fire,” a 6-foot wall of flame that would roar up the hill and consume dozens of acres in a matter of minutes.

“It’s gonna get a little warm right here,” Nielson said, “but it’s gonna get warm for only a second.”

As I leaned in with the torch and set the grass ablaze, the heat was overwhelming. While everyone else working the fire seemed nonchalant, I was tentative and terrified. My right hand stretched forward to make the dots and dashes where Nielson instructed, but my butt was sticking as far back into the road as it could get.

I asked Nielson how hot he thought the flames in front of us were. “I used to know that,” he said with a shrug. “I want to say it’s probably between 800 and 1,200 degrees.”

With the hillside still burning, I peeled off all of the protective gear, hopped in a car and followed the smoke north along the 101 Freeway. By lunchtime, Ukiah, a town of 16,000 that bills itself as the gateway to the redwoods, was shrouded in haze.

Everybody smelled the smoke, but prescribed burns are becoming so common in the region, nobody seemed alarmed.

“Do it!” said Judy Hyler, as she and two friends walked out of Stan’s Maple Cafe. A veteran of the rampant destruction of wildfires from years past, she didn’t hesitate when asked how she felt about the effort. “I would rather it be prescribed, controlled and managed than what we’ve seen before.”

June 10 (UPI) — Elon Musk‘s work in the government has ended after five months and former White House staff have serious doubts about the Department of Government Efficiency self-reported results.

To date, DOGE claims that it has saved the government about $180 billion by slashing the federal workforce, ending contracts, selling assets and cutting grant programs. However, its so-called “Wall of Receipts” is filled with questionable or inaccurate entries, according to Elaine Karmarck, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Karmarck led President Bill Clinton‘s Reinventing Government Initiative, a program that cut 426,000 civil servants from the federal payroll and cut federal and agency regulations.

There are three metrics Karmarck told UPI she uses to measure how effective DOGE is. Some of those metrics will not be available until the next administration takes office on Jan. 20, 2029.

The first metric is whether there are fewer people working in the federal government at the end of President Donald Trump‘s term. There are about 2.2 million federal employees, a number that — despite narratives claiming the government continues to grow — has been consistent for decades.

In the 1940s, there were as many as 3 million federal employees. In the 1950s, there were about 2.5 million. In the 1980s, the number of federal employees increased back to about 3 million. It has remained between 2 and 3 million since.

Federal judges have ruled that some federal employees DOGE advised to be fired must be rehired. Musk also said that it has made mistakes in some layoffs, including laying off employees with the National Nuclear Safety Administration who are responsible for the safekeeping of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

The second metric is whether there are fewer government contracts and fewer dollars spent on those contracts.

DOGE lists more than 11,000 contract terminations totaling $34 billion in savings. It says more than 15,000 grants have been terminated resulting in about $44 billion in savings.

Third is the government’s performance as measured by economic markers such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ unemployment reports as well as people’s own experiences receiving government services.

“That’s a biggie. In other words, you can cut the government but if you have airplanes crashing and you have massive mix ups in Social Security checks, nobody is going to be applauding you for this,” Karmarck said.

DOGE’s goal has been to cut about $2 trillion in federal spending.

UPI reached out to the White House Press Office and Tesla’s press office for interviews or comments. Neither responded to the requests.

About a quarter of the government’s budget is discretionary spending, meaning spending that is subject to appropriations by Congress. It amounts to less than $2 trillion. In fiscal year 2024, discretionary outlays totaled about $1.8 trillion.

The rest of the budget is mandatory spending, also known as direct spending. This funding goes toward programs like Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits and other programs.

Jenny Mattingly, vice president of government affairs for Partnership for Public Service, told UPI it would be difficult to reach DOGE’s goal without cutting into mandatory spending.

“Most of the U.S. budget is this mandatory, non-discretionary spending,” Mattingly told UPI. “Just a small portion, comparatively, goes to the federal workforce.”

While the number of federal employees has remained relatively consistent, Mattingly notes that there are fewer federal employees per capita as the population has grown.

“When you look at the U.S. population, that’s exploded,” she said. “So we actually have fewer federal employees per capita than in the past and they’re doing an enormously greater magnitude and scope of work than the federal government did, say 30, 40, 100 years ago. What Congress and administrations have authorized the government to do is far greater and far more complex than it was.”

Measuring DOGE’s progress five months in remains a challenge. The most recent date that DOGE updated its payment statistics or “receipts” was May 13. At that time, less than half of those receipts were itemized.

The most cost savings, indicated by DOGE’s “Agency Efficiency Leaderboard,” have come from the Department of Health and Human Services, followed by the General Services Administration, the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management.

“The list they put on the DOGE website turns out to be about 40% inaccurate,” Karmarck told UPI. “We can’t take their word for it. They were very sloppy. They made no effort at transparency other than a website which just has a list of things.”

An example of the inaccuracies shared by Karmarck is that DOGE has taken credit for ending contracts that ended before Trump was inaugurated.

Faith Williams, director of the Effective and Accountable Government Program for Project on Government Oversight, agrees that DOGE’s website cannot be trusted based on its inaccuracies and a lack of transparency.

Inaccuracies have been brought to DOGE’s attention on social media and it has made some corrections, though questions remain about its transparency.

“Transparency has been an issue since day one,” Williams told UPI. “This is an example of where DOGE has the power of a cabinet-level agency when it wants to but doesn’t have to recordkeep when it doesn’t want to. DOGE gets to be whatever is convenient in the moment.”

Musk’s initial role — as stated by him and Trump — was to lead DOGE in an effort to tackle waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government for the purpose of making it run more efficiently. The White House later downplayed his direct role with DOGE, referring to him as an adviser to the president.

The murkiness of Musk’s true role in DOGE underlines why Williams has concerns about its structure, mission and lack of transparency. She has been investigating the office since it began, looking into its structure, who works for DOGE and its potential conflicts of interest.

“One thing we learned fairly early on DOGE, its structure was very questionable. It was very opaque and it was opaque by design,” Williams said. “That opacity really helped shield it and its actors and its actions from any kind of accountability, whether that’s from members of the public or even congressional accountability or even in the courts.”

“Who led DOGE and worked at DOGE was one thing one day and a different thing on a different day depending on what was advantageous,” she continued.

Project on Government Oversight filed a lawsuit against DOGE over its lack of recordkeeping made available to the public and accessing sensitive records. DOGE faces lawsuits from other organizations related to its alleged lack of compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

In March, U.S. District Court Judge Casey Cooper ruled that DOGE’s records are likely subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This was in response to a lawsuit by the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

There are several more lawsuits against DOGE related to its handling of data, compliance with FOIA and methods of cutting federal workers.

In contrast, Karmarck’s Reinventing Government Initiative did not face any litigation.

“The reason we had no lawsuits is we followed the law,” she said. “We passed a buyout bill so we had the congressional authority for buying people out. We simply followed the law.”

Instead of recommending Congress take actions like laying off federal employees or rescinding funds it has approved, DOGE has taken unilateral actions resulting in lawsuits. Funding approved by Congress requires congressional action to end.

DOGE is not a congressionally approved agency, as a president cannot unilaterally create a new agency. He can create a new office, as past presidents have done. The authority of that office to take actions is limited, making it closer to an adviser than a federal agency.

Accessing federal data systems and making changes is among the actions DOGE has taken that have raised the greatest concerns.

Beth Noveck was the founding director of the White House’s Open Government Initiative, a program started under President Barack Obama‘s administration that focused on using technology and data to modernize and improve government operations. She is currently the director of the Governance Lab and its MacArthur Research Network on Opening Governance at New York University.

Noveck told UPI oversight on DOGE is past overdue, due to reports of the data it has accessed or attempted to access, including Medicare and Medicaid payment data, Social Security records, student loan data and the Office of Personnel Management systems.

“Who has access and how it is being used is something we need an accounting of,” Noveck said. “It’s concerning and it seems that we’re giving access to the likes of Palantir [Technology] to combine data that will effectuate mass surveillance and control. The risk is not just a failed attempt at cost savings, it’s a successful attempt at authoritarian overthrow.”

The main tenets of DOGE are not new, evidenced by the work Noveck and Karmarck did for past administrations. There are nonpartisan government oversight entities that existed before Trump’s current term as well, including the Office of Government Ethics and the inspectors general. However, shortly after Trump returned to office he fired the head of the Office of Government Ethics and 18 inspectors general.

Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., released a report on Musk’s 130 days working in the government. The report alleges that Musk used his position to direct lucrative government contracts toward himself and his companies SpaceX, Tesla, Boring Company and Starlink.

Amid an online feud with Musk following his departure as a White House Adviser, Trump has threatened to cancel all contracts with his companies.

Warren’s report also alleges that Musk and DOGE undercut agencies responsible for regulating his businesses and stopped enforcement actions against them.

June 7 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data.

On Friday, the Court’s six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population.

In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions.

In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: “We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.”

The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander’s decision.

The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans.

They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,” the groups said in a statement. “This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE’s affiliates to steal Americans’ private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public’s most sensitive data as this case moves forward.”

Social Security Works posted on X: “No one in history — no commissioner, no president, no one — has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have.”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that “the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law.”

Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the “Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court’s intervention. In essence, the ‘urgency’ underlying the government’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.”

She concluded her dissent by writing: “The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.”

Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs “from cradle to grave.”

“While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have ‘God-level’ access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more,” Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers.

DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency.

“These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government’s records to much-needed scrutiny,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion.

The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents’ names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare.

SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The plaintiffs wrote: “The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it.”

Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that”The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.”

On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take.

Musk called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28.

The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers’ payroll tax payments to people who are already retired.

The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.

The United States Supreme Court has sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in two cases about government records — and who should have access to them.

On Friday, the six-member conservative majority overturned a lower court’s ruling that limited the kinds of data that Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could access through the Social Security Administration (SSA).

In a separate case, the majority also decided that DOGE was not required to turn over records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a government transparency law.

In both cases, the Supreme Court’s three left-leaning justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan — opposed the majority’s decision.

DOGE has been at the forefront of Trump’s campaign to reimagine the federal government and cut down on bureaucratic “bloat”.

Unveiled on November 13, just eight days after Trump’s re-election, DOGE was designed to “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies”.

At first, it was unclear how DOGE would interact with the executive branch: whether it would be an advisory panel, a new department or a nongovernmental entity.

But on January 20, when Trump was sworn in for his second term, he announced that the existing US Digital Service — a technology initiative founded by former President Barack Obama — would be reorganised to create DOGE.

The government efficiency panel has since led a wide-scale overhaul of the federal government, implementing mass layoffs and seeking to shutter entities like the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

It also advertised cost-savings it had achieved or alleged fraud it had uncovered, though many of those claims have been contradicted or questioned by journalists and experts.

In addition, DOGE’s sweeping changes to the federal government made it the subject of criticism and concern, particularly as it sought greater access to sensitive data and systems.

Up until last week, DOGE was led by Elon Musk, a billionaire and tech entrepreneur who had been a prominent backer of Trump’s re-election bid. Musk and Trump, however, have had a public rupture following the end of the billionaire’s tenure as a “special government employee” in the White House.

That falling-out has left DOGE’s future uncertain.

Accessing Social Security data

One of DOGE’s controversial initiatives has been its push to access Social Security data, in the name of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse.

Early in Trump’s second term, both the president and Musk repeated misleading claims that Social Security payments were being made to millions of people listed as 150 years old or older. But fact-checkers quickly refuted that allegation.

Instead, they pointed out that the Social Security Administration has implemented a code to automatically stop payments to anyone listed as alive and more than 115 years old.

They also pointed out that the COBOL programming language flags incomplete entries in the Social Security system with birthdates set back 150 years, possibly prompting the Trump administration’s confusion. Less than 1 percent of Social Security payments are made erroneously, according to a 2024 inspector general report.

Still, Trump officials criticised the Social Security Administration, with Musk dubbing it “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” and calling for its elimination.

In March, US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked DOGE from having unfettered access to Social Security data, citing the sensitive nature of such information.

Social Security numbers, for instance, are key to verifying a person’s identity in the US, and the release of such numbers could endanger individual privacy.

Lipton Hollander ruled that DOGE had “never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA’s entire record systems”. She questioned why DOGE had not sought a “more tailored” approach.

“Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud,” she wrote in her ruling. “Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”

The judge’s ruling, however, did allow DOGE to view anonymised data, without personally identifying information.

The Trump administration, nevertheless, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that Judge Lipton Hollander had exceeded her authority in blocking DOGE’s access.

The Supreme Court granted its emergency petition on Friday, lifting Lipton Hollander’s temporary restrictions on the data in an unsigned decision.

But Justice Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent (PDF), suggesting that the Supreme Court was willing to break norms to assist a presidency that was unwilling to let legal challenges play out in lower courts.

“Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them,” Brown Jackson wrote.

She argued that the Trump administration had not established that any “irreparable harm” would occur if DOGE were temporarily blocked from accessing Social Security data.

But by granting the Trump administration’s emergency petition, she said the court was “jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process”.

Is DOGE subject to transparency laws?

The second Supreme Court decision on Friday concerned whether DOGE itself had to surrender documents under federal transparency laws.

The question was raised as part of a lawsuit brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group.

It argued that DOGE’s sweeping powers suggested it should be subject to laws like FOIA, just like any other executive agency. But CREW also alleged that the ambiguity surrounding DOGE’s structures had kept it insulated from outside probes.

“While publicly available information indicates that DOGE is subject to FOIA, the lack of clarity on DOGE’s authority leaves that an open question,” CREW said in a statement.

The watchdog group sought to compel DOGE to provide information about its inner workings.

While a US district judge had sided with CREW’s request for records in April, the Supreme Court on Friday paused that lower court’s decision (PDF). It sent the case back to a court of appeals for further consideration, with instructions that the April order be narrowed.

“Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity’s ability to persuade,” the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled.

It also said that the courts needed to exercise “deference and restraint” regarding “internal” executive communications.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for the DOGE team that had been led by Elon Musk to examine Social Security records that include personal information on most Americans.

Acting by a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an appeal from President Trump’s lawyers and lifted a court order that had barred a team of DOGE employees from freely examining Social Security records.

“We conclude that, under the present circumstances,” the Social Security Administration, or SSA, “may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,” the court said in an unsigned order.

In a second order, the justices blocked the disclosure of DOGE operations as agency records that could be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The court’s three liberals — Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissented in both cases.

“Today, the court grants ‘emergency’ relief that allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to hand DOGE staffers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans,” Jackson wrote. “The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now — before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE’s access is lawful.”

The legal fight turned on the unusual status of the newly created Department of Governmental Efficiency. This was a not true department, but the name given to the team of aggressive outside advisors led by Musk.

Were the DOGE team members presidential advisors or outsiders who should not be given access to personal data?

While Social Security employees are entrusted with the records containing personal information, it was disputed whether the 11 DOGE team members could be trusted with same material.

Musk had said the goal was to find evidence of fraud or misuse of government funds.

He and DOGE were sued by labor unions who said the outside analysts were sifting through records with personal information that was protected by the privacy laws. Unless checked, the DOGE team could create highly personal computer profiles of every person, they said.

A federal judge in Maryland agreed and issued an order restricting the work of DOGE.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, an Obama appointee, barred DOGE staffers from having access to the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. But her order did not restrict the Social Security staff or DOGE employees from using data that did not identify people or sensitive personal information.

In late April, the divided 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to set aside the judge’s order by a 9-6 vote.

Judge Robert King said the “government has sought to accord the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) immediate and unfettered access to all records of the Social Security Administration (‘SSA’) — records that include the highly sensitive personal information of essentially everyone in our country.”

But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court and said a judge should not “second guess” how the administration manages the government.

He said the district judge had “enjoined particular agency employees — the 11 members of the Social Security Administration (SSA) DOGE team — from accessing data that other agency employees can unquestionably access, and that the SSA DOGE team will use for purposes that are unquestionably lawful. … The Executive Branch, not district courts, sets government employees’ job responsibilities.”

Sauer said the DOGE team was seeking to modernize SSA systems and identify improper payments, for instance by reviewing swaths of records and flagging unusual payment patterns or other signs of fraud.

The DOGE employees “are subject to the same strict confidentiality standards as other SSA employees,” he said. Moreover, the plaintiffs “make no allegation that the SSA DOGE team’s access will increase the risk of public disclosure.”

He said checking the personal data is crucial.

“For instance, a birth date of 1900 can be telltale evidence that an individual is probably deceased and should not still receive Social Security payments, while 15 names using the same Social Security number may also point to a problem,” he said.

WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday officially asked Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in already approved spending, taking funding away from programs targeted by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

It’s a process known as “rescission,” which requires President Donald Trump to get approval from Congress to return money that had previously been appropriated. Trump’s aides say the funding cuts target programs that promote liberal ideologies.

The request, if it passes the House and Senate, would formally enshrine many of the spending cuts and freezes sought by DOGE. It comes at a time when Musk is extremely unhappy with the tax cut and spending plan making its way through Congress, calling it on Tuesday a “disgusting abomination” for increasing the federal deficit.

White House budget director Russ Vought said more rescission packages and other efforts to cut spending could follow if the current effort succeeds.

“

Here’s what to know about the rescissions request:

Will the rescissions make a dent in the national debt?

The request to Congress is unlikely to meaningfully change the troublesome increase in the U.S. national debt. Tax revenues have been insufficient to cover the growing costs of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government is on track to spend roughly $7 trillion this year, with the rescission request equaling just 0.1% of that total.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at Tuesday’s briefing that Vought would continue to cut spending, hinting that there could be additional efforts to return funds.

“He has tools at his disposal to produce even more savings,” Leavitt said.

Vought said he can send up additional rescissions at the end of the fiscal year in September “and if Congress does not act on it, that funding expires.”

“It’s one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,” he added.

What programs are targeted by the rescissions?

A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview some of the items that would lose funding, said that $8.3 billion was being cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. NPR and PBS would also lose federal funding, as would the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR.

The spokesperson listed specific programs that the Trump administration considered wasteful, including $750,000 to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar and $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in Zambia.

Is the rescissions package likely to get passed?

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., complimented the planned cuts and pledged to pass them.

“This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE’s findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,” Johnson said. “Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.”

Members of the House Freedom Caucus, among the chamber’s most conservative lawmakers, said they would like to see additional rescission packages from the administration.

“We will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months,” the group said in a press release.

Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, gave the package a less optimistic greeting.

“Despite this fast track, the Senate Appropriations Committee will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations,” the Maine lawmaker said in a statement.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Elon Musk may have resigned from the Department of Government Efficiency, but few believe he’s stepping away from power. In under a year, DOGE brought Silicon Valley-style disruption to Washington, consolidating federal data and dismantling oversight. Now, Musk is expected to channel what he gained into a private AI venture – with public systems still in reach.

WASHINGTON — Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who has led an effort in the Trump administration to cut jobs and programs across the federal government, stood by President Trump’s side on Friday in the Oval Office, officially for the last time as a government employee. But neither man was clear whether Musk’s active hand in government is truly over.

Their display of unity comes after Musk, the entrepreneur behind Tesla and SpaceX, issued a series of criticisms of Trump’s policies, both directly and through his companies, and as reports emerge that the billionaire fought fierce battles with the president’s aides and has relied on potent drugs while serving as Trump’s confidante.

“Nobody like him,” Trump said of Musk at the White House event. “He had to go through the slings and the arrows, which is a shame, because he’s an incredible patriot.”

“Many of the DOGE people, Elon, are staying behind. So they’re not leaving. And Elon’s really not leaving,” Trump added. “He’s going to be back and forth, I think, I have a feeling. It’s his baby.”

Musk praised the team of DOGE, an acronym for the Department of Government Efficiency program, for saving what he said was $175 billion in government spending. The program had initially set a more lofty goal of cutting $2 trillion, and it is unclear if Musk’s team has even met its revised figure, with the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service documenting an increase in federal spending over this time last year.

“The DOGE team is doing an incredible job,” Musk said. “I’ll continue to be visiting here, and be a friend and advisor to the president.”

Whether Musk continues in his role will have legal consequences. As a special government employee, Musk is obligated to end his service, now that the maximum work period allowed of 130 days has passed.

A group of 14 states has sued, arguing that Musk’s employee status was a ruse for the Trump administration to bring him into a powerful government role without having to go through a Senate confirmation process.

A federal judge in Washington on Wednesday ruled that Musk’s initial appointment was questionable, stating he “occupies a continuing position” and “exercises significant authority,” opening up a broader legal challenge over the constitutionality of his work for DOGE.

In a series of interviews leading up to his official departure from government, Musk has said that he plans to lessen his political spending going forward, and has criticized the Trump administration and congressional Republicans for pursuing legislation that would balloon the national deficit, a move he said was contrary to DOGE’s mission.

His departure this week comes after the New York Times reported on Musk’s heavy use of ketamine, a potent anesthetic drug, and after a Wall Street Journal article detailed Musk’s attempts to thwart Trump from pursuing partnerships on artificial intelligence in the Middle East that would benefit Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI and a personal nemesis of Musk’s.

Musk’s time in government has been marked by multiple setbacks for his companies. SpaceX has failed to meet essential engineering milestones for Starship, a critical super-heavy rocket ship that is critical to the U.S. effort to return humans to the moon and his own personal goal of reaching Mars. And Tesla, his electric vehicle company, saw a 71% plunge in profits in the first quarter of 2025 and a 50% drop in stock value from its highs in December.

“I think I probably did spend a bit too much time on politics,” Musk told Ars Technica, a science and technology publication, in an interview on Tuesday.

“It’s not like I left the companies,” he added. “It was just relative time allocation that probably was a little too high on the government side, and I’ve reduced that significantly in recent weeks.”

On Wednesday evening, the world’s wealthiest man announced that his sojourn in the nation’s capital is almost over. “As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Elon Musk posted to X, the social media platform he owns.

While Musk was quick to add that the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency mission “will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government,” his departure will represent the effective end of DOGE as we know it. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “much of DOGE’s work will shift to the White House Office of Management and Budget,” which is headed by Russell Vought.

The DOGE team claims it identified about $175 billion in total savings. Given the federal government spent $6.75 trillion in fiscal 2024 alone, that may seem like a mere drop in the bucket. And given that Musk himself once vowed to identify taxpayer savings in the trillions of dollars — albeit without much of a timeline attached to that pronouncement — it certainly is a bit disappointing.

But consider some of the specific outrageous spending outlays identified by Musk’s team as ripe for the cutting board, such as $382 million from alleged fraudulent unemployment benefits (as the Department of Labor had previously flagged) and astonishing extravagance on the foreign stage — for instance, $2 million to an organization in Guatemala advocating gender-affirming healthcare and $20 million to a “Sesame Street”-inspired early childhood initiative in Iraq.

Such ideologically driven spending is emblematic of what Vought, in a Newsweek op-ed written two years ago during the Biden-era presidential interregnum, described as the “the scourge of a woke and weaponized bureaucracy.” The brief DOGE experiment, which uncovered tens of thousands of combined government contract and grant terminations that would shock the conscience of most Americans with any inclination toward sound fiscal stewardship, is proof that such a “woke and weaponized bureaucracy” isn’t merely speculative — it really exists.

There is probably a lot more, furthermore, where that $175 billion in flagged waste came from. And Vought, who has worked with Musk since last year, is the right man to continue the mission once Musk fully returns to the private sector.

There are now at least two additional steps that must be taken — one pressing short-term item and one more difficult longer-term item.

The reconciliation budget in the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” that passed the House last week, and which is now pending before the Senate, did not incorporate the DOGE cuts. It seems there is a procedural reason for this: The DOGE cuts are technically post hoc rescissions of presently appropriated money, and rescissions of current outlays are typically subject to their own process. An obscure figure known as the Senate parliamentarian controls the process by which the annual reconciliation budget bill — a favored tool because it permits a Senate majority to bypass the chamber’s legislative filibuster — can pass muster. And Capitol Hill Republicans apparently fear that including the DOGE rescissions would endanger President Trump’s desired bill.

But without Congress actually enacting the DOGE cuts into law, history will show this entire exercise to have been largely futile. Accordingly, Vought and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget must, following the reconciliation bill’s passage and enactment into law, transmit a fresh rescission package to Speaker Mike Johnson’s desk. It is extraordinarily important that the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress demonstrate not merely that they can identify excessive spending but also that they are willing to cut it.

The longer-term problem is thornier.

While DOGE has served a useful function, and while Vought’s office can probably identify a good amount more in the way of “woke and weaponized bureaucracy” cost-cutting measures, it is a matter of basic mathematics that something more will be needed to begin to rein in America’s soaring annual deficits and our shocking national debt.

The Republican Party of Donald Trump has moved in a strongly populist direction on issues of political economy. On many fronts, such as antitrust and industrial policy efforts to reshore vital supply chains, such a shift is very much welcome.

But at some point, both Republicans and Democrats alike are going to have to find some way to come together and put our entitlement programs — above all, Medicare and Social Security — on a path to sustainability. The political optics of being perceived as “cutting” either of these programs are simply horrible, so any attempt at reform will not be easy. But it must be done anyway, as the recent Moody’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating makes starkly clear. The longer we wait, the more credit downgrades and interest payment spikes we risk.

Basic game theory suggests that neither party will want to blink first. Recall the 2012-era political ads accusing then-GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan of throwing grandmothers off cliffs. The politics are nasty, divisive and radioactive. But this must get done. So we’ll have to find some way to force everyone to do it together. And in the meantime, as a down payment, let’s just make sure DOGE’s crucial work was not done in vain.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

May 21 (UPI) — The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to block proceedings on a case looking to get information on the Department of Government Efficiency.

In an application to stay the orders of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking documents about DOGE under the Freedom of Information Act, Solicitor General John Sauer wrote that DOGE is exempt from such requests.

“The U.S. DOGE Service is a presidential advisory body within the Executive Office of the President. The President, in various executive orders, has tasked USDS with providing recommendations to him and to federal agencies on policy matters that the President has deemed important to his agenda,” Sauer wrote. “Given those advisory functions, USDS is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.”

The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a lawsuit against DOGE in February, which described DOGE as “a cadre of largely unidentified actors, whose status as government employees is unclear, controlling major government functions with no oversight.”

The CREW suit asked for DOGE to comply with its FOIA requests “and promptly disclose the requested records.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. ordered in May that DOGE must provide the requested information.

CREW responded to the request from Sauer to the Supreme Court with a statement Wednesday that said “While DOGE continues to attempt to fight transparency at every level of justice, we look forward to making our case that the Supreme Court should join the District Court and Court of Appeals in allowing discovery to go forward.”

May 19 (UPI) — A federal judge ruled Monday that a DOGE-lead takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace by the Trump administration was “unlawful.”

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said the removal of USIP’s president and his replacement by a DOGE-appointed official along with the termination of “nearly all” its staff and transfer of USIP property to the U.S. General Services administration was “effectuated by illegitimately-installed leaders who lacked legal authority to take these actions, which must therefore be declared null and void,” she wrote.

Personnel from White House adviser Elon Musk‘s Department of Government Efficiency gained access to the U.S. Institute of Peace after originally being turned away in March. USIP then sued the administration for “unlawful dismantling,” with its acting chief saying DOGE “has broken into our building.”

Legislation signed in 1984 by then-President Ronald Reagan had created the USIP to be an “independent nonprofit corporation established by Congress.”

The Trump administration fired most of USIP’s 12-member board, leaving U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Defense University President Peter Garvin as its three remaining board members.

The three then installed Kenneth Jackson as acting USIP president.

In March, nearly two months to the day of Monday’s ruling, Howell rejected an initial complaint filed by the U.S. Institute of Peace against the Trump administration’s attempted takeover, but questioned the tactics used by DOGE in its appropriation.

“By design, USIP was established by the two political branches to advance a safer, more peaceful world with the specific tasks of conducting research, providing training on peacemaking techniques, and promoting peaceful conflict resolution abroad — without formally involving the U.S. government in foreign disputes,” Howell wrote in a 102-page memorandum opinion.

“The President second-guessed the judgment of Congress and President Reagan in creating USIP 40 years ago,” Howell, an appointee of ex-President Barack Obama, wrote Monday.

Meanwhile, USIP stated in its complaint that the White House “incorrectly labeled” the institute a “governmental entity” part of the “federal bureaucracy.”

However, Howell declined to issue a temporary restraining order, saying USIP was a “very complicated entity” with both qualities of non-governmental organizations and features of government agencies, such as having to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.

In 2003, a USIP spokesman said the think tank is required by law to be a non-partisan institution, and is mandated only to address issues related to overseas conflict.

In her 4-page ruling, Howell wrote Monday that USIP Acting President George Moose would stay as its leader and banned the administration from “further trespass against the real and personal property belonging to the Institute and its employees, contractors, agents and other representatives.”

The White House, meanwhile, contended that the U.S. Institute of Peace had existed for 40 years but “failed to deliver peace.”

“President Trump is right to reduce failed, useless entities like USIP to their statutory minimum, and this rogue judge’s attempt to impede on the separation of powers will not be the last say on the matter,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told NBC Monday.