Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s departure from the Trump administration has ignited debates over the legacy and impact of DOGE — the Department of Government Efficiency.
Established by executive order on January 20, 2025, DOGE was tasked with streamlining federal operations and eliminating waste. However, after just over four months, Musk stepped down following his public denouncement of a Republican-backed budget bill as “a disgusting abomination.”
Wyoming Star spoke with Dean Baker, a prominent American macroeconomist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), to discuss the political, institutional, and economic ramifications of Musk’s tenure.
Wyoming Star: Was it a conflict of interest for Elon Musk to advise the government while running companies that do business with it?
Baker: Absolutely, no one has ever done anything like this. I recall when [Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi was here, and Musk was meeting with him, Trump was asked whether Musk was acting as a representative of the government or for his own businesses.
Trump said he didn’t know. Trump created an absurd conflict of interest that would be the sort of thing that would have gotten prior presidents impeached.”
Wyoming Star: What does Musk’s criticism of the Trump spending bill say about disagreements inside the administration?
Baker: Hard to say. When it comes to government spending, Musk really doesn’t seem to have any clear idea what he is talking about. No one who had taken ten minutes looking at the federal budget would have been talking about cutting $2 trillion unless they planned to have massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Defense.
Wyoming Star: How do Musk’s views about government — like calling it “a big DMV”— shape public opinion?
Baker: Also hard to say. Musk’s standing has plummeted since he set up DOGE. At this point it is likely the only people who take Musk seriously are the hardcore Trump base who likely already believe the government is a big DMV.
Wyoming Star: Did the DOGE program cause real harm to federal agencies like the FAA and NIH, or are those concerns exaggerated?
Baker: No, the harms are very real. The FAA was short-staffed before Musk went in. He pushed many people to leave. Threatening people with a chainsaw is not good for employee retention and the ones who are most likely to leave are the ones you would want to keep. He has devastated the NIH.
Unless there is a quick reversal he will have turned the U.S. from the unchallenged world leader in biomedical research to a backwater. The top scientists are fleeing the country. They don’t have to put up with Musk’s idiocy.
Wyoming Star: Why do some people admire Musk’s efforts to shrink government, while others see them as reckless?
Baker: Some people have no idea what Musk was doing or what the government is doing. For example, Musk said that 20 million people with birthdates that put them over 115 were getting Social Security. This was total nonsense as everyone at all familiar with the program knows.
Wyoming Star: Do you think Musk left government now to protect his business image, or because he disagreed with the way things were going?
Baker: His businesses are going down the toilet — most importantly Tesla — since no one interested in an EV wants a Musk car. His other companies may do well based on his government contracts.
Editor’s Note
Musk’s exit from DOGE marks the close of one of the most controversial tech-government partnerships in modern U.S. history. Despite Musk’s lofty promises of slashing $2 trillion in waste, the program ended with only $175 billion in estimated savings — less than 10% of original projections.
In his final press appearance, Trump handed Musk a ceremonial golden key in a display of unity, even as cracks in their relationship became public over the latest Republican spending bill. While polling suggests that cutting government remains popular, it remains unclear whether the administration will rebrand DOGE — or quietly let it fade after 2026.
