No, Musk Is Not Dismantling Democracy – He’s Cutting Spending and Eliminating Waste!
Musk is not dismantling democracy; he is cutting government spending and eliminating waste. He is also investigating corruption among politicians earning less than $200,000 per year yet possessing net worths in the millions. Why would anyone oppose that?
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has launched a comprehensive effort to reduce bureaucracy, eliminate wasteful spending, and modernize government operations. By streamlining processes and cutting unnecessary expenditures, DOGE aims to enhance efficiency across multiple federal agencies. One key initiative includes replacing outdated systems, such as manual sorting of retirement paperwork, with modernized solutions to improve effectiveness and reduce costs.
One of DOGE’s most significant actions targeted the Department of Education, immediately terminating over $370 million in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) grants, which funded programs such as anti-racism training for teachers and educational initiatives abroad. Additionally, DOGE implemented a $900 million budget cut to the agency responsible for tracking American students’ academic progress, significantly reducing operational expenses.
Advocates for dismantling the U.S. Department of Education argue that its elimination could enhance educational outcomes by returning control to state and local authorities, thereby fostering tailored approaches that better address regional needs. Established in 1979, the Department’s inception was intended to elevate national educational standards; however, critics point out that since its formation, the United States has experienced a decline in global education rankings. For instance, recent assessments reveal that American students’ reading and math proficiency has deteriorated, with eighth-grade reading scores reaching their lowest levels in decades. Proponents assert that decentralizing education governance would reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and empower communities to implement effective, localized solutions, potentially reversing these negative trends.
DOGE took decisive action to eliminate the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting down its website and social media accounts, terminating staff, and halting overseas development projects. This move effectively ceased USAID’s operations, significantly reducing federal spending on international aid programs. The agency has long faced criticism for inefficient spending and misallocated funds. Notable examples include $1.5 million for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in Serbian workplaces and a $70,000 grant for a DEI-themed musical in Ireland. Additionally, USAID funded a $47,000 “transgender opera” in Colombia and a $32,000 “transgender comic book” in Peru—funding which could have been used for lifesaving aid in crisis zones. Other questionable expenditures include $6 million to boost Egypt’s already thriving tourism industry and $20 million to develop a Sesame Street program in Iraq. Furthermore, USAID awarded $110,000 to a Michigan-based charity with alleged ties to terrorist organizations in South Asia, raising concerns about oversight and accountability.
Another major cut involved the shutdown of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) headquarters in Washington, D.C. Reports indicated that windows were covered as internal discussions on budget reductions and restructuring took place. As the agency responsible for financial consumer protection, the CFPB underwent significant operational changes under DOGE’s directives, reflecting broader efforts to streamline government functions and reduce spending.
DOGE secured access to the Treasury Department’s federal payment system, which manages trillions in annual government expenditures. This initiative is part of a broader strategy to analyze and potentially restructure how federal funds are allocated and spent, ensuring greater efficiency and accountability.
DOGE’s cost-saving initiatives include eliminating redundant advisory boards across multiple agencies, saving an estimated $2.3 billion annually. Additionally, consolidating IT services within the federal government has streamlined data management, cutting cybersecurity costs by $1.5 billion. Another major effort involves renegotiating defense contracts, eliminating overpriced supplier agreements, and enforcing competitive bidding practices, leading to projected savings of over $10 billion.
Beyond cost-cutting, DOGE has intensified efforts to scrutinize congressional financial activities and expose conflicts of interest among high-ranking government officials. Elon Musk has questioned how certain representatives, despite earning middle-class salaries, have accumulated significant wealth. Investigations have uncovered cases where lawmakers made lucrative stock trades coinciding with legislative actions that benefited specific industries, raising concerns about potential insider trading violations. To address these issues, DOGE is working to implement stricter financial disclosure requirements and audit procedures, aiming to enhance transparency and accountability within the federal government.
DOGE’s initiatives signify a major shift in federal operations, focusing on reevaluating government efficiency, prioritizing spending, and tackling potential corruption. By emphasizing cost reduction, transparency, and accountability, these efforts aim to fundamentally reshape financial management across federal agencies.
The media and Twittersphere are working hard to convince Americans that Musk is dangerous, portraying his efforts to cut government waste and reduce costs as not only harmful but a threat to democracy. They repeatedly point out that Musk is not an elected official, yet of the millions of government officials, fewer than 1,000—including Congress and the president—are elected. The IRS, the Department of Education, and the head of the Federal Reserve are not elected either, yet their authority and legitimacy have never been questioned by the media. Those opposing Musk and Trump’s actions are either blinded by party loyalty rather than evaluating the policies themselves, afraid of what Musk might uncover, or worried about losing their cushy positions. In that case, they are exactly the kind of people who need to be investigated and removed.
