In the election campaign, Musk arbitrarily declared that it could easily identify and eliminate $2 trillion in wasteful government spending, even though all discretionary spending in 2024 would only amount to $1.6 trillion. It’s hard to believe that Musk put any critical thought into this figure. If the government were to cut $2 trillion from the budget, it would be nearly impossible to do so without decimating Social Security and Medicare. For someone as selfish and dismissive of workers as Musk, these social costs may be worth it just to prove he can do it.

As of November 19, the few publications on DOGE’s Twitter/X accountto which Musk lent government/multilateral verification despite his unofficial, non-governmental affiliation, illustrates a superficial and sensationalized approach to what constitutes government ineffectiveness, such as government-funded research and the amount of words in the tax code American.

Ironically, DOGE has the potential to put the Trump administration in an awkward position – for example, Ramaswamy and Musk have indicated a interest in the creation of a mobile application allowing individuals to declare their taxes. This juvenile “solution” betrays a lack of familiarity with how tax reform is implemented through legislation as well as the negotiations that lead to decisions like these. Notably, much of the reason the U.S. tax system is so convoluted is because companies like Intuit have puts pressure for years to maintain a complicated and costly system for taxpayers.

The fact that much of the inefficiency in the current system is due to corporate overreach and monopoly could be a tough pill to swallow for free market evangelists like DOGE leaders. Likewise, a natural target of an organization like DOGE should be the swollen Pentagon budget, which received well-deserved support scrutiny since President Joe Biden’s unconditional support for Israel’s all-out military campaign (and war crimes) in Gaza began a little over a year ago.

The implicit contradiction of having two co-chairs of an organization dedicated to combating waste and inefficiency is already laughable – not to mention that it’s unlikely that Ramaswamy and Musk will see eye to eye on every issue. Ramaswamy has reported an interest in reforming the federal contracting process to address fraud and abuse of the system by entrenched actors – like Musk, whose companies receive billions of dollars in federal contracts. It’s hard to say how Ramaswamy, for whom downsizing government was a major aspect of his presidential campaign, will manage to square the circle when the same financial interests that ensured Trump’s election are the ones who benefit from the status quo.

In this way, the best outcome of the DOGE mandate is that it causes infighting between conservatives and corporate interests who exploit the current system for their own gain. In reality, however, the conflicts of interest implicit in Musk and Ramaswamy’s leadership of a government watchdog mean that it will only benefit big business at the expense of workers and consumers.

In Musk’s case, his companies have been subject to investigations and enforcement actions by various government agencies due to myriad violations of financial and labor regulations. Placing Musk at the helm of a watchdog, even if it is simply an advisory position outside of government, is a prime example of regulatory capture, allowing regulators to be co-opted by those they regulate. Or, as a progressive watchdog, Public Citizen declared in a press release, “the ultimate corruption”.

Musk and Ramaswamy’s admiration for Argentine President Javier Milei offers us a glimpse into their ideal end state. Ramaswamy tweeted November 18: “A reasonable formula for fixing the American government: Milei-style cuts, on steroids.” »

When Milei took office last year, he said conditions would get worse before things got better; Musk in the same way warned that DOGE’s recommendations may cause “temporary difficulties.” Meanwhile, in Argentina, Milei’s austerity measures have targeted the country’s social safety net, provoking the poverty rate will skyrocket while only cutting taxes for the nation’s wealthiest citizens, a worrying prospect for a second Trump administration if DOGE’s advice is ever implemented.

A second Trump term will undoubtedly see a multi-pronged attack on any institution that seeks to constrain big business, and DOGE will lead the charge. After all, in the public call for DOGE collaborators, he is looking for “very high IQ small government revolutionaries”; that’s how they see themselves. We can only hope that, due to their blatant insufferability, DOGE’s relationship with the Trump administration will flare up in spectacular fashion.