logo
Elon Musk's official role at Trump's DOGE ends, but his political impact lingers ahead of midterms

Elon Musk's official role at Trump's DOGE ends, but his political impact lingers ahead of midterms

Yahoo30-05-2025

As Elon Musk, the world's richest person, put it, his role in steering President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has come "to an end."
However, the president, in a social media post on Thursday night announcing that he and Musk would team up for a 1:30 p.m. ET White House news conference on Friday, teased that Musk would continue to help the Trump administration.
"This will be his last day, but not really, because he will, always, be with us, helping all the way. Elon is terrific!" he wrote.
Musk's political impact on national politics and on next year's midterm elections — for better or for worse — is far from over and is likely to live on well past his official departure from the Trump administration.
What's Next For Doge After Elon Musk's Departure
Trump, after winning back the White House in last November's election, created DOGE with marching orders to overhaul and downsize the federal government. Trump named Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX and Trump's biggest political donor in the 2024 election, to steer the organization.
Read On The Fox News App
"Elon Musk made the most serious attempt at reducing the size and scope of government in modern political history. It was at times chaotic but impactful," veteran GOP strategist Ryan Williams told Fox News.
Williams predicted that Musk's "efforts will continue to linger as a political football, but also a guide for Republicans if they're serious about limiting the growth of the federal government."
After returning to the White House in January, Musk and DOGE quickly swept through federal agencies, rooting out what the new administration argued was billions in wasteful federal spending. Additionally, they took a meat cleaver to the federal workforce, resulting in a massive downsizing of employees.
Nothing symbolized Musk's controversial moves more than his brandishing of a chainsaw during a February appearance at the MAGA-dominated Conservative Political Action Conference, where he touted "how easy" it was to "save billions of dollars sometimes in… an hour."
The moves by DOGE grabbed tons of national attention and triggered a slew of lawsuits in response. Many of DOGE's cuts in government staffing were stymied or reversed by federal court orders.
While DOGE was originally tasked with slashing $2 trillion from the federal government's budget, the DOGE website earlier this week said that its efforts to date had led to roughly $175 billion in savings due to asset sales, contract cancellations, fraud payment cuts, in addition to other steps to eliminate costs.
Musk Criticism Of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Frustrates Some Republicans
Musk's arrival in the nation's capital came with a bang.
Thanks to a direct pipeline to the president and his powerful mouthpiece on the social media site X, Musk instantly and repeatedly made headlines with his provocative moves and the targeting of people he did not like, often to the chagrin of Trump administration officials and Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Trump repeatedly praised Musk and DOGE's efforts.
"The vast majority of people in this country really respect and appreciate you, and this whole room can say that very strongly; you have really been a tremendous help," the president said during a Cabinet meeting four weeks ago, when Musk announced that he would be cutting back on his time spent with DOGE and the Trump administration.
However, behind the scenes, there was a lot less harmony.
"People got really sick of him really quickly," a veteran Republican strategist with ties to the administration and Capitol Hill who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely told Fox News.
"He was fun to begin with," the strategist noted, before adding that "people inside and around the administration and people outside" were tired of Musk "by the end, when he's sitting in a meeting wearing multiple hats on his head."
Additionally, Musk's recent criticism of Trump's sweeping "big beautiful bill," which passed a major congressional hurdle, did not help matters.
While a slew of public opinion polls, including national surveys from Fox News, indicated that Americans like the idea of downsizing the federal government, those same surveys highlighted that the public was far from thrilled with how Musk and DOGE carried out cuts to the federal bureaucracy.
White House Reveals Next Steps For Doge After Musk Departure
Musk, who spent nearly $300 million in support of Trump's 2024 White House victory, quickly became a lightning rod in the handful of off-year and special elections held early this year.
Through aligned political groups, Musk dished out roughly $20 million in battleground Wisconsin's high-profile state Supreme Court race, in support of Trump-backed judge Brad Schimel, the conservative-leaning candidate in the election.
Musk, in a controversial move, handed out $1 million checks at a rally in Green Bay two nights ahead of the election to two Wisconsin voters who had already cast ballots in the contest and had signed a petition to stop "activist judges."
Musk, at the rally, donned a cheesehead hat — a foam wedge which resembles a chunk of cheese — that is traditionally worn by devout Green Bay Packers football fans in Wisconsin and across the country.
However, Schimel ended up losing by 10 points to the Democratic-aligned candidate in what was supposed to be a close contest. Musk ended up getting tagged with plenty of blame in a race that partially turned into a referendum on his efforts at DOGE.
Top Five Wildest Moments Of Musk's Doge Tenure
Democrats repeatedly made Musk the bogeyman in their messaging in Wisconsin's election and in other contests, and they pledged to continue to target him heading into next year's midterm elections, when Republicans will be defending their razor-thin House majority and their modest Senate majority.
"Top of mind for voters are the pocketbook issues. Democrats are going to win by highlighting the fact that Republicans are failing at lowering costs because they are too busy pushing tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations, while making the rest of us pay for them," Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee national press secretary Viet Shelton told Fox News.
Shelton emphasized that "Elon is, and forever will be, an instantly-recognizable manifestation of the fact that House Republicans don't work for the American people, they work for the billionaires."
So, were Musk's potential political risks to Republicans behind his departure from the nation's capitol?
A GOP strategist close to GOP lawmakers, when asked if Musk's welcome was wearing out among congressional Republicans, said "yes to a point."
"But I think the larger question about whether Musk and DOGE are liabilities in the midterms, I would say emphatically no," added the strategist, who asked for anonymity to speak more freely.
The strategist noted that GOP lawmakers "who have talked about waste, fraud, and abuse, and have talked about the savings generated by DOGE, they've done quite well. It's the folks who don't want to message on it and have not put Democrats on defense, who are tired of Musk."
Additionally, veteran Republican strategist Matt Gorman disagrees with the Democrats' argument about Musk's lasting impact on the campaign trail.
"I don't think that in any way Elon Musk will be a factor one way or another in the year-plus that we have until Election Day 2026," Gorman, a veteran of numerous presidential and statewide campaigns, told Fox News.Original article source: Elon Musk's official role at Trump's DOGE ends, but his political impact lingers ahead of midterms

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges
Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges

Vox

time11 minutes ago

  • Vox

Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges

Late last month, approximately 1 billion news cycles ago, an obscure federal court made President Donald Trump very, very mad. The US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously on May 28 that the massive tariffs Trump imposed after taking office again are illegal. That ruling was suspended the next day by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the tariffs will be allowed to remain in effect pending a ruling (arguments are scheduled for late July). But the appellate court's decision didn't soothe Trump. He took to Truth Social on May 29 to post a 510-word screed attacking the judges on the Court of International Trade, before turning his ire toward a more surprising candidate — Leonard Leo, the most important person in the conservative legal movement. 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump wrote, reminiscing about his first term. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' This breakup surprised many commentators. But not David French. 'If you're familiar with how the conservative legal movement has interacted with MAGA, you have seen this coming for a while,' French, a New York Times columnist, lawyer, and onetime member of the Federalist Society, told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. 'You knew this was coming after 2020. Because in 2020, after Trump had really stocked the federal judiciary with an awful lot of FedSoc judges and justices…none of them, zero of them, helped him try to steal the election.' French spoke with Today, Explained about the origins of the (other) big, beautiful breakup and what it means for the Trump administration and the future of the federal judiciary. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society? I am not now, but I have been a member of the Federalist Society. I was a member of the Federalist Society either all three years of law school or the first two years of law school. But it was also a very different time. I think the Federalist Society at the law school at that time, when we would have meetings, maybe 10 or 12 people would show up. Things have changed. One of the most conspicuous changes is that FedSoc has become an enemy of the president of the United States. From [2020] forward, you began to see this drifting apart between FedSoc and MAGA. When Trump comes back into office and he doubles down on being Donald Trump, all of this became very, very predictable. Because if the Trump administration's argument dovetailed with their originalist legal philosophy, they would rule for it. But if it was just simply Trump's lawless demands, they were going to reject it. And Trump is baffled by this distinction. He's baffled by it because congressional Republicans haven't drawn this line at all. When Trump's demands conflict with conservative principles, they will yield to Trump's demands every time. And the judges and justices have taken the opposite tack to such an extent that Republican-nominated judges have ruled against Trump about 72 percent of the time, which is remarkably close to about the 80 percent or so of the time that Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against Trump. You mentioned a whole host of issues where FedSoc judges have perhaps not given Trump what he wanted. Does the one that finally tips Trump off to go for it on Truth Social surprise you? It doesn't, because what really set him off was striking down tariffs. To the extent that Trump loves a policy, he loves tariffs. The Court of International Trade struck it down, and it was pointed out to him that one of the judges on the Court of International Trade that struck down the tariffs was appointed by him. He had been ranting about judges in general. Now he got specific with Leonard Leo; he got specific with the FedSoc. People like me who'd been watching this for a very long time were not wondering if this was going to happen. We were just wondering what was going to be the tipping point: Was it going to be a Supreme Court case? Was it going to be an appellate court? It turns out it was the Court of International Trade that brought us to this moment. Leonard Leo did not author a decision from this court. Why is he mad at Leonard Leo? Leonard Leo has long been a key figure in the Federalist Society and was very much a part of the first Trump administration, working closely with the administration to put forward judges. For a long time, Trump looked at his judicial nominations and waved them like a flag to the American conservative public saying, look what I did. But the more the American conservative public started loving Trump as Trump, versus Trump as what policy wins he could deliver, the less he started waving these other ideological flags, and the more it became all about him. And so this meant that this marriage was going to be temporary almost from the beginning, unless FedSoc capitulated. And if you know anything about FedSoc and the people who belong to it, and the people who've come up as judges, I knew they weren't going to capitulate. It's a very different culture from political conservatism. Do you think Donald Trump didn't realize that? I don't think he realized that at all. He's had this entire history politically of when Republicans disagree with him, they either fall in line or they're steamrolled. And so it's so interesting to me that he actually began that Truth Social rant that lacerated Leonard Leo and the FedSoc with this question: What's going on? Why is this happening? And I totally understand his bafflement. Because all of the political people had surrendered, or almost all of them. And so when he turns around and these judges and justices just keep ruling against him, you can understand why he would take that as, 'What's going on here? I don't get this. I don't understand this. I've been assured that these were good judges.' And so that's where you get to that real tension. Do you think this rift with the Federalist Society will affect how he appoints judges going forward? The short answer to that question is yes. The longer answer to that question is heck yes. A lot of people were worried about this because they were thinking, Okay, Trump 1.0: He has General Mattis as his secretary of defense. Trump 2.0: He has Pete Hegseth. You can do this all day long. The Trump 1.0 early nominations — sound, serious, establishment conservatives. Trump 2.0 — often MAGA crazies. The question was, 'Is this same pattern going to establish itself in Trump 2.0 on judges?' And then he appointed to the Third Circuit Emil Bove, this DOJ enforcer of his who was responsible for the effort to dismiss the Eric Adams case. He's nominated him for the Third Circuit, and a lot of people are now saying, 'Oh, now that's your harbinger right there.'

What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump
What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump

Vox

time12 minutes ago

  • Vox

What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump

is a senior writer at Future Perfect, Vox's effective altruism-inspired section on the world's biggest challenges. She explores wide-ranging topics like climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccine development, and factory farms, and also writes the Future Perfect newsletter. While tech has generally been very liberal in its political support and giving, there's been an emergence of a real and influential tech right over the last few years. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images I live and work in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I don't know anyone who says they voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. I know, on the other hand, quite a few who voted for him in 2024, and quite a few more who — while they didn't vote for Trump because of his many crippling personal foibles, corruption, penchant for destroying the global economy, etc. — have thoroughly soured on the Democratic Party. Future Perfect Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. It's not just my professional networks. While tech has generally been very liberal in its political support and giving, the last few years have seen the emergence of a real and influential tech right. Elon Musk, of course, is by far the most famous, but he didn't start the tech right by himself. And while his break with Trump — which Musk now seems to be backpedaling on — might have changed his role within the tech right, I don't think this shift will end with him. The rise of the tech right The Bay Area tech scene has always to my mind been best understood as left-libertarian — socially liberal, but suspicious of big government and excited about new things from cryptocurrency to charter cities to mosquito gene drives to genetically engineered superbabies to tooth bacteria. That array of attitudes sometimes puts them at odds with governments (and much of the public, which tends to be much less welcoming of new technology). The tech world valorizes founders and doers, and everyone knows two or three stories about a company that only succeeded because it was willing to break some city regulations. Lots of founders are immigrants; lots are LGBTQ+. For a long time, this set of commitments put tech firmly on the political left — and indeed tech employees overwhelmingly vote and donate to the Democratic Party. Related The AI that apparently wants Elon Musk to die But over the last 10 years, I think three things changed. The first was what Vox at the time called the Great Awokening — a sweeping adoption of what had been a bunch of niche liberal social justice ideas, from widespread acceptance of trans people to suspicion of any sex or race disparity in hiring to #MeToo awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace. A lot of this shift at tech companies was employee driven; again, tech employees are mostly on the left. And some of it was good! But some of it was illiberal — rejecting the idea that we can and should work with people we profoundly disagree with — and identitarian, in that it focused more on what demographic categories we belong to than our commonalities. We're now in the middle of a backlash, which I think is all the more intense in tech because the original woke movement was all the more intense in tech. The second thing that changed was the macroeconomic environment. When I first joined a tech company in 2017, interest rates were low and VC funding was incredibly easy to get. Startups were everywhere, and companies were desperately competing to hire employees. As a result, employees had a lot of power; CEOs were often scared of them. The third was a deliberate effort by many liberals to go after a tech scene they saw as their enemy. The Biden administration ended up staffed by a lot of people ideologically committed to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's view of the world, where big tech was the enemy of liberal democracy and the tools of antitrust should be used to break it up. Lina Khan's Federal Trade Commission acted on those convictions, going after big tech companies like Amazon. Whether you think this was the right call in economic terms — I mostly think it was not — it was decidedly self-destructive in political terms. So in 2024, some of tech (still not a majority, but a smaller minority than in the past two Trump elections) went right. The tech world watched with bated breath as Musk announced DOGE: Would the administration bring about the deregulation, tax cuts, and anti-woke wish list they believed that only the administration could? …and the immediate failure The answer so far has been no. (Many people on the tech right are still more optimistic than me, and point at a small handful of victories, but my assessment is that they're wearing rose-colored glasses to the point of outright blindness.) Some deregulation has happened, but any beneficial effects it would have had on investment have been more than canceled out by the tariffs' catastrophic effects on businesses' ability to plan for the future. They did at least get the tax cuts for the rich, if the 'big, beautiful bill' passes, but that's about all they got — and the ultra-rich will be poorer this year anyway thanks to the unsteady stock market. The Republicans, when out of power, had a critique of the Democrats which spoke to the tech right, the populist right, the white supremacists and moderate Black and Latino voters alike. But it's much easier to complain about Democrats in a way that all of those disparate interest groups find compelling than to govern in a way that keeps them all happy. Once the Trump administration actually had to choose, it chose basically none of the tech right's priorities. They took a bad bet — and I think it'd behoove the Democrats to think, as Trump's coalition fractures, about which of those voters can be won back.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store