Without Elon Musk, DOGE likely to fizzle out: Ex-staffer
Without billionaire Elon Musk in the Trump administration, his cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency project is likely to sputter out, a former DOGE staffer said in his first interview since leaving the team.
Tesla CEO Musk announced on Wednesday evening that he was ending his time as a special government employee but vowed that DOGE would continue without him. Administration media representatives also said in statements to Reuters that DOGE would continue its work.
DOGE has overseen job cuts at nearly every federal agency as part of US President Donald Trump's attempts to shake up the federal bureaucracy.
However, software engineer Sahil Lavingia, who spent almost two months working for the group of pro-Musk technologists, said he expects DOGE to quickly 'fizzle out.'
'It'll just die a whimper,' Lavingia, who was fired from DOGE earlier this month, told Reuters. 'So much of the appeal and allure was Elon.' He said he expected DOGE staffers to 'just stop showing up to work. It's like kids joining a startup that will go out of business in four months.'
That would cap a remarkable undoing for DOGE, which Musk initially vowed would cut 2 trillion dollars in federal spending. Instead, DOGE estimates its efforts have saved around 175 billion dollars so far, and the group's tallies have been riddled with errors.
The White House praised DOGE but did not comment on Lavingia.
'DOGE is integral to the federal government's operations, and its mission, as established by the President's executive order, will continue under the direction of agency and department heads in the Trump administration,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said.
Musk did not respond to a request for comment.
Lavingia, the 32-year-old founder and CEO of creator platform Gumroad, said he was recruited by DOGE through a personal contact and joined the team in March.
While he said he was proud of certain achievements at the Department of Veterans Affairs, including modernizing the agency's internal artificial-intelligence chatbot, he said he was often at a loss about what work he was expected to do.
'I got dropped into the VA with an HP laptop. What are we supposed to do? What is the road map?' Lavingia said he asked, to no avail. 'I felt like I was being pranked.'
Veterans Affairs press secretary Pete Kasperowicz said in a statement to Reuters: 'VA looks forward to continuing to work with its DOGE liaisons to help the department improve its performance, customer service, and convenience to Veterans.'
Lavingia said Steve Davis, the president of Musk's tunneling enterprise the Boring Company, ran day-to-day operations while Turkish-born venture capitalist Baris Akis helped with DOGE recruitment and DOGE logistics.
Davis and Akis did not respond to requests for comment sent via the White House.
When instructions did come through, they were usually communicated through phone calls or small chats on the encrypted Signal messaging app that would typically auto-delete in one day, Lavingia said.
Lavingia said instructions included moving faster to increase mass layoffs at the VA, the federal government's second-largest agency.
The only time he met Musk, Lavingia said, was at an all-hands meeting in March with what he estimated was between 40 and 60 fellow DOGE staffers.
Lavingia said he asked to open-source, or make freely available, some of his computer code, which Musk approved.
He then asked if they could livestream DOGE meetings to increase transparency.
'Elon said: 'That's a great idea. We'll do it next week.' He then caught himself and said: 'Maybe we pre-record it because of security risks.''
Lavingia said he never heard back.
In early May, after he spoke to media outlet Fast Company about working at DOGE, Lavingia said his computer access was revoked in what amounted to a firing. He said Musk and team leaders never explicitly told him he should not talk to journalists.
'My DOGE days were over,' Lavingia wrote in a blog about his experience.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Schwarzenegger Tells Environmentalists Dismayed by Trump to ‘Stop Whining' and Get to Work
Arnold Schwarzenegger has a message for environmentalists who despair at the approach of President Donald Trump's administration: 'Stop whining and get to work.' The new US administration has taken an ax to Biden-era environmental ambitions, rolled back landmark regulations, withdrawn climate project funding and instead bolstered support for oil and gas production in the name of an 'American energy dominance' agenda. Schwarzenegger, the former Republican governor of California, has devoted time to environmental causes since leaving political office in 2011. He said Tuesday he keeps hearing from environmentalists and policy experts lately who ask, 'What is the point of fighting for a clean environment when the government of the United States says climate change is a hoax and coal and oil is the future?' Schwarzenegger told the Austrian World Summit in Vienna, an event he helps organize, that he responds: 'Stop whining and get to work.' He pointed to examples of local and regional governments and companies taking action, including his own administration in California, and argued 70% of pollution is reduced at the local or state level. 'Be the mayor that makes buses electric; be the CEO who ends fossil fuel dependence; be the school that puts (up) solar roofs," he said. 'You can't just sit around and make excuses because one guy in a very nice White House on Pennsylvania Avenue doesn't agree with you,' he said, adding that attacking the president is 'not my style' and he doesn't criticize any president when outside the US. 'I know that the people are sick and tired of the whining and the complaining and the doom and gloom,' Schwarzenegger said. 'The only way we win the people's hearts and minds is by showing them action that makes their lives better.'
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
US to Eventually Reduce Military Bases in Syria to One, Says US Envoy
The United States has begun reducing its military presence in Syria with a view to eventually closing all but one of its bases there, the US envoy for the country has said in an interview. Six months after the ouster of longtime Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad, the United States is steadily drawing down its presence as part of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), a military task force launched in 2014 to fight the ISIS. "The reduction of our OIR engagement on a military basis is happening," the US envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, said in an interview with Türkiye's NTV late on Monday. "We've gone from eight bases to five to three. We'll eventually go to one." But he admitted Syria still faced major security challenges under interim leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, whose coalition toppled Assad in December. Assad's ouster brought an end to Syria's bloody 14-year civil war, but the new authorities have struggled to contain recent bouts of sectarian violence. Barrack, who is also the US ambassador to Turkey, called for the "integration" of the country's ethnic and religious groups. "It's very tribal still. It's very difficult to bring it together," he said. But "I think that will happen," he added. The Pentagon announced in April that the United States would halve its troops in Syria to less than 1,000 in the coming months, saying the ISIS presence had been reduced to "remnants".
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
The One Way Trump Hasn't Changed the G.O.P.
By general consensus, if the policies of President Trump's first administration were a compromise between his impulses and the doctrines of the pre-Trump Republican Party, then Trump 2.0 is Trumpism in full. The old order is dissolved, the Bush and Reagan Republicans are exiled or subjugated, and Trump alone sets the agenda for the G.O.P. There are clearly areas where this is true. Trump's foreign policy can be described in various ways — as a form of Jacksonian-inflected realism, as a deal-making blitz, as an immoral attempt to promote a more authoritarian world order — but in each description you can see the outline of something coherent and clearly specific to Trump himself. Likewise the Trumpian culture war, which began with internal bureaucratic battles and now seeks to humble Harvard University, may be reckless or punitive or dubiously legal, but it's easy enough to tell a coherent story in which crushing the strongholds of cultural liberalism is a uniquely Trumpist goal. But the budget battles that delivered the passage of a House tax bill last week feel like a notable exception to this rule. Here the old Republican Party is still powerful, the old ideas still dominant. Here Trumpism as a transformative force is relatively weak, in part because Trump himself doesn't know exactly what he wants. And here it's hard to make the way the Republican majority intends to tax and spend cohere with other elements of the administration's agenda, on trade and immigration above all. In its broad strokes, the House tax bill could have been passed under any Republican president of my adult lifetime. Prioritizing low top tax rates and corporate tax cuts? That's the old song of supply-side economics. Combining those tax cuts with cuts to Medicaid and discretionary programs? That's Paul Ryan's Republican Party. Finding that your spending cuts don't pay for your tax cuts? That's the familiar deficit-financed conservatism of the Reagan and Bush presidencies. Of course, there are aspects of the tax bill that are specific to Trump and his coalition. The Ryan-era G.O.P. was open to trimming Medicare and Social Security; the Trump-era party won't go there. Now, one could counter that since Trump supports the 'big, beautiful' bill, it's Trumpist by definition. Maybe he just is an old-guard Republican on taxes and transfers. But I don't think that's quite right. Trump has lots of economic instincts that differ from the old consensus. That's why he pushed the party leftward on Medicare and Social Security. It's why he recently warned congressional Republicans not to mess with Medicaid. That default, in turn, does not cohere with the other elements of Trumpism. It doesn't cohere politically with his populist appeals because it offers relatively little to the president's downscale base. And it also doesn't cohere as economic policy because it doesn't match with the priorities implied by the president's big trade and immigration moves. Both of those big moves reject the logic of 1990s and early 2000s globalization, the assumption that the freest possible movement of goods and people would necessarily benefit the United States. On trade, for instance, the Trumpian idea that there is a particular interest in building up the American manufacturing base, whether for the sake of increasing blue-collar employment or the sake of national security, strongly implies that the government should be trying to act comprehensively to boost American industry and innovation in at least partial imitation of the Chinese model. The Trump administration has ideas in this area, and its deregulation strategy. My suspicion is that in the next year we'll get some talk about a Trump infrastructure or industrial policy bill but that, as in the first term, it will founder because House Republicans aren't interested and Democrats don't see any upside in bipartisanship. On immigration, similarly, the Trump theory is that America can prosper with much lower rates of low-skilled immigration, thanks to some combination of tech breakthroughs (maybe the robots are finally coming) and higher wages that coax male work force dropouts back to factory jobs. But in the longer run, if you have a much lower immigration rate, you need a higher domestic birthrate. Of course, it's possible that the Trump administration and America will be fortunate, that deregulation alone will clear a path for technological breakthroughs that happen independently of government support, that cultural ferment will yield a more rapid renewal of family formation than any program of baby bonuses or child tax credits. But in the realm of fiscal policy, amid debt and inflation risks, there will never be a Republican agenda oriented fully toward populist goals without a Republican president willing to break a conservative taboo that Trump has mostly left in place, by finding some way to be right-wing and also tax the rich. The New York Times
