
Unfinished Business: The budget cuts Musk couldn't complete and what's next for DOGE
Though Elon Musk leaves behind a legacy of massive cuts to government programs which left many members of the Washington, D.C., establishment enraged, he was not able to accomplish all the lofty goals he set at the beginning of his time as head of the Department of Government Efficiency.
According to a May 26 update on DOGE's website, the initiative has saved an estimated $175 billion through asset sales, contract cancellations, fraud payment crackdowns and other spending cuts. That translates to about $1,087 in savings per taxpayer.
Though significant, the $175 billion is a far cry from the original $2 trillion–nearly a third of the federal government's total spending–that Musk originally set out to cut.
So, what went wrong?
Richard Stern, an economics policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital that DOGE "overestimated what legal flexibility they would have, and the agencies would have, to actually make good on that."
From the start, DOGE was hit with not only a tsunami of negative press and outraged Democratic lawmakers, but also a series of lawsuits, which bogged it down in protracted legal battles.
This, coupled with the reality of most of the major end cuts requiring congressional approval to carry out, relegated DOGE's impact on cutting around the edges of the big programs and agencies it likely would have liked to eliminate entirely.
Despite Musk's efforts, in many cases agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could only be shrunk and limited, while total elimination requires an act of Congress.
Just last week, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell blocked the Trump administration's dismantling of the U.S. Institute of Peace, writing in a ruling that the removal of its board members and the takeover of its headquarters by members of DOGE are actions that are "null and void."
Stern asserted that "at the end of the day, they were just a little overzealous about how much legal authority they would ultimately have to be able to make this many cuts themselves,"
Where Stern believes DOGE can have the greatest impact is on focusing on the information-gathering and whistleblower aspects of its mission.
"You can kind of break down DOGE into two very large buckets," he posited. "The first large bucket, which is the one that's mostly been not done, is actually making grand spending cuts themselves directly. I think the second one was identifying what cuts could be made."
"The original plan was that DOGE could come in and do both these things that they could find specific spending to cut … and then the other part of that was identifying this information and making it public that people didn't have that would allow for really thought-out spending cuts to come in from Congress," he explained.
Though less flashy, Stern believes this is where DOGE, going forward, can have its greatest impact.
"There's a lot of think tanks, including Heritage, that have put together lists for a very long time as to policies that we don't think are good, where you could cut spending. But I think what no one has a window into is the really deep mechanics of how a lot of these programs work. And so, because of that, it's actually been very hard in a really robust fashion to even know what programs you could cut spending from or how you would do it or what the ramifications would be," he explained.
"So, DOGE, by being in the administration, has been in and continues to be in a position to actually make that public, to actually put a spotlight on that in a way that really almost nobody else was in a position to do," Stern went on. "That can feed rescission bills and congressional cuts down the road. But some admin needed to actually do that. And DOGE is finally doing that."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
A cohort of Senate Republicans already troubled by the House GOP's version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" found a common ally in Elon Musk, who again trashed the legislation on Tuesday. Musk, who just exited his tenure as Trump's efficiency bloodhound leading the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) last week, doubled down on his position that the House's reconciliation package was an "abomination." White House Stands By Tax Bill After Musk Calls It A 'Disgusting Abomination' "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk said on X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination." "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," he continued. "You know it." Senate Republicans have already vowed to make changes to the colossal bill, which includes the president's desires on tax, energy, immigration, defense and national debt policies. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., lauded Musk for his work with DOGE, but noted that the Senate GOP and the tech-billionaire had "a difference of opinion." Read On The Fox News App Elon Musk Criticism Of Trump Tax Bill Frustrates Some Republicans: 'No Place In Congress' He didn't believe that Musk's comments would derail the bill entirely in the upper chamber, either. Thune has pledged to get the bill to the president's desk by Independence Day. "The legislation, as passed by the House, can be approved here in the Senate, can be strengthened in the Senate, in a number of ways," Thune said. "We intend to do that, but when it's all said and done, we'll send it back to the House and hope that they can pass it and put it on the president's desk." Still, fractures have emerged among lawmakers, with some viewing the bill through the same lens as Musk. "Well, he has some of the same skepticism I have, you know, towards the big, beautiful bill," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Trump Criticizes Rand Paul Over Tax Bill Opposition: 'Votes No On Everything' Paul has vowed not to support the bill as is without a serious overhaul to the legislation that would nix a $5 trillion increase to the nation's debt ceiling — a stance that has gotten him into hot water with Trump. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has similarly pledged not to support the bill unless much steeper spending cuts are achieved. The House's product includes $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but Johnson would like to see a return to pre-pandemic spending levels, which would effectively amount to a roughly $6 trillion cut in spending. "I share his concerns," Johnson said of Musk. "I also appreciate what he and President Trump did with his DOGE effort." And Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a fiscal hawk whose views are closely aligned with Johnson's, argued in response to the tech billionaire's social media post that "federal spending has become excessive." "The resulting inflation harms Americans and weaponizes government," Lee said on X. "The Senate can make this bill better. It must now do so." Other Senate Republicans, including those with outstanding concerns with the current legislation, were much less receptive to Musk's tirade against the bill. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has remained steadfast in his position that he would not support the current Medicaid proposals in the House's bill, especially if they cut benefits to his constituents and people across the country. When asked his reaction to Musk's rant, he shrugged, "Well, he's entitled to his opinion, it's a free country." Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.V., who has expressed reservations on the contents of the megabill, was more blunt. "My reaction to that is just simply this — and y'all may like this or not like this — but you know, Donald Trump is our president, not Elon Musk," he article source: GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Man Who Tried To Lawlessly Do Congress' Job For It Criticizes ‘Pork-Filled' Bill
Black-eyed and officially, allegedly on the outskirts of the Trump administration, Elon Musk is saying more about his recently discovered objections to the reconciliation package that passed the House last month and will make sweeping cuts to Medicaid if it makes its way through the Senate. The world's richest man is, of course, not bothered by the ways in which Republicans plan to gut the social safety net program outlined in the bill. Rather he believes it does too much to actually fund the government and it rubs up against his Department Of Government Efficiency work. Before officially exiting the Trump administration — though President Trump, perhaps tellingly, is still insisting that that is not actually happening — Musk told CBS News that he believed the size of the 'massive spending bill' 'undermines' the work that his DOGE cronies have been doing for the past five months. That work has, of course, been constitutionally backwards, if not illegal, as he's used a sweeping mandate from Trump as an opening to freeze and rescind funds that were appropriated by Congress. The Trump White House is dragging its feet to try to force Congress to actually sign elements of Elon's DOGE rampage into law via a rescissions package — a method for codifying the unilateral withholding of congressionally authorized federal funds that even some Senate Republicans have acknowledged might be necessary to make any of DOGE's work lawful. It appears Musk's beef with the spending bill — which will raise the debt ceiling and also gut other social safety net programs like SNAP for the purpose of making Trump's 2017 tax cuts, that mostly benefited the wealthy, permanent — runs deeper than his concerns that Congress shouldn't authorize new federal spending when he's trying to wipe out that concept. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote on Twitter Tuesday. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' 'It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,' he added. Musk has broken with the Trump administration while effectively serving as a member of it a few times, including on Trump's disastrous tariff plan. Facing plummeting Tesla sales, unflattering headlines about drug use and after only bringing about a mere fraction of the trillions he promised to cut in federal spending, Musk has again publicly broken with the Trump White House — though its unclear if its all a show for an audience of certain shareholders. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on Tuesday acknowledged there's a line item included in House Republicans' reconciliation package that she didn't realize had been shoved into the legislation at close to the last minute: Specifically, a provision that blocks states from passing laws to regulate AI over the course of the next decade. Obviously, take all this with a grain of salt. The AI provision was a known element of the bill that was reported on before it passed the House. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' she said on Twitter Tuesday. 'I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there … This needs to be stripped out in the Senate.' A new estimate from two top universities found that House Republicans' reconciliation package could lead to more than 51,000 deaths annually if enacted. Researchers from Yale University and University of Pennsylvania estimate that the Medicaid cuts in the GOP bill, which would result in millions losing their Medicaid and Marketplace coverage, as well as the rollback of nursing home staffing rules could take approximately 42,500 lives. In addition, the expiration of the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) Premium Tax Credits could take an additional 8,811 deaths, bringing the total to more than 51,000, researchers say. 'Despite some of the callous sarcasm from Republican members of Congress lately, the stakes for this bill are truly life and death for tens of thousands of Americans,' Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) said in a Tuesday statement in response to the estimates. If you were wondering, Wyden is referring to Sen. Joni Ernst's (R-IA) recent unhinged 'Well, we're all going to die,' moment. 'Taking away health insurance and benefits like home care and mental health care from seniors, people with disabilities, kids, and working families will be deadly,' Wyden added. 'This analysis shows the dire consequences of moving ahead with this morally bankrupt effort.' Back from their recess, the Senate is starting to take up the House-passed reconciliation package. We will see if Senate Republicans will try to make changes to any of the Medicaid-related amendments in coming days. — Emine Yücel The Democratic National Committee apparently parked a taco truck outside of the RNC headquarters this afternoon to try to get under Trump's skin about his trade policies about an apparent nickname he's been given by Wall Street traders. Per Axios: The Democratic National Committee is commandeering a taco truck to mock Trump's apparent fury at the slogan 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' or 'TACO,' Axios has learned. Why it matters: Democrats clearly think they have found a way to get under the president's skin. Trump was asked about the mantra — used by Wall Street traders to predict his response to tariff-induced market dips — at a press conference Wednesday, and he lashed out in response. Trump White House Hires Harvard Law Review 'Whistleblower' Some Dems Warn Colleagues: Crypto Bill Could Inject Some 19th Century Chaos Into US Economy Kristi Noem Cowed By Sheriffs Into Retreating From Latest Anti-Immigrant Broadside Democrats' Hamlet Moment Isn't the Start of a Solution But the Heart of the Problem Meet Josh Divine, the Trump Judicial Nominee Who Argued Christians Are 'Obligated Ethically to Impose Their Beliefs On Others' He Built an Airstrip on Protected Land. Now He's in Line to Lead the Forest Service. Navy mulls new name for USNS Harvey Milk and ships named for civil rights leaders
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Big Tech's AI Endgame Is Coming Into Focus
If Google has its way, there will be no search bars, no search terms, no searching (at least not by humans). The very tool that has defined the company—and perhaps the entire internet—for nearly three decades could soon be overtaken by a chatbot. Last month, at its annual software conference, Google launched 'AI Mode,' the most drastic overhaul to its search engine in the company's history. The feature is different from the AI summaries that already show up in Google's search results, which appear above the usual list of links to outside websites. Instead, AI Mode functionally replaces Google Search with something akin to ChatGPT. You ask a question and the AI spits out an answer. Instead of sifting through a list of blue links, you can just ask a follow-up. Google has begun rolling out AI Mode to users in the United States as a tab below the search bar (before 'Images,' 'Shopping,' and the like). The company said it will soon introduce a number of more advanced, experimental capabilities to AI Mode, at which point the feature could be able to write a research report in minutes, 'see' through your smartphone's camera to assist with physical tasks such as a DIY crafts project, help book restaurant reservations, make payments. Whether AI Mode can become as advanced and as seamless as Google promises remains far from certain, but the firm appears to be aiming for something like an everything app: a single tool that will be able to do just about everything a person could possibly want to do online. Seemingly every major tech company is after the same goal. OpenAI markets ChatGPT, for instance, as able to write code and summarize documents, help shop, produce graphics, and naturally, search the web. Elon Musk is notoriously obsessed with the idea of turning X into an everything app. Meta says you can use its AI 'for everything you need'; Amazon calls its new, generative AI–powered Alexa+ 'an assistant available to help any time you want'; Microsoft bills its AI Copilot as a companion 'for all you do'; and Apple has marketed Apple Intelligence and a revamped Siri as tools that will revolutionize how people use their iPhones (which encompass, for many users, everything). Even Airbnb, once focused simply on vacation rentals, is redesigning itself as a place where 'you can sell and do almost anything,' as its CEO, Brian Chesky, recently said. In a sense, everything apps are the logical conclusion of Silicon Valley's race to build artificial 'general' intelligence, or AGI. A bot smart enough to do anything obviously would be used to power a product that can, in effect, do anything. But such apps would also represent the culmination of the tech industry's aim to entrench its products in people's daily lives. Already, Google has features for shopping, navigation, data storage, work software, payment, travel—plus an array of smartphones, tablets, smart-home gadgets, and more. Apple has a similarly all-encompassing suite of offerings, and Meta's three major apps (Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) each have billions of users. Perhaps the only thing more powerful than these sprawling tech ecosystems is boiling them all down to a single product. That these tech companies can even realistically have such colossal ambitions to build everything apps is a result of their existing dominance. The industry has spent years collecting information about our relationships, work, hobbies, and interests—all of which is becoming grist for powerful AI tools. A key feature of these everything apps is that they promise to be individually tailored, drawing on extensive personal data to provide, in theory, a more seamless experience. Your past search history, and eventually your emails, can inform AI Mode's responses: When I typed line up into AI Mode, I got the 'line up' for the day's New York Mets game (the Mets are my favorite baseball team). When I typed the same phrase into traditional Google Search, I got a definition. In other words, the rise of AI-powered everything apps is a version of the bargain that tech companies have proposed in the past with social media and other tools: our services for your data. Meta's AI assistant can draw on information from users' Facebook and Instagram accounts. Apple describes its AI as a 'personal intelligence' able to glean from texts, emails, and notes on your device. And ChatGPT has a new 'memory' feature that allows the chatbot to reference all previous conversations. If the technology goes as planned, it leads to a future in which Google, or any other Big Tech company, knows you are moving from Texas to Chicago and, of its own accord, offers to order the winter jacket you don't own to be delivered to your new apartment, already selected from your favorite brand, in your favorite color. Or it could, after reading emails musing about an Italian vacation, suggest an in-budget itinerary for Venice that best fits your preferences. There are, of course, plenty of reasons to think that AI models will not be capable and reliable enough to power a true everything app. The Mets lineup that Google automatically generated for me wasn't entirely accurate. Chatbots still invent information and mess up basic math; concerns over AI's environmental harms and alleged infringement of intellectual-property rights could substantially slow the technology's development. Only a year ago, Google released AI Overviews, a search feature that told users to eat rocks and use glue to stick cheese to pizza. On the same day that Google released AI Mode, it also introduced an experimental AI shopping tool that can be easily used to make erotic images of teenagers, as I reported with my colleague Lila Shroff. (When we shared our reporting with the company, Google emphasized the protections it has in place and told us it would 'continue to improve the experience.') Maybe AI Mode will order something two sizes too large and ship to the wrong address, or maybe it'll serve you recommendations for Venice Beach. [Read: Google's new AI puts breasts on minors—and J.D. Vance] Despite these embarrassments, Google and its major AI competitors show no signs of slowing down. The promised convenience of everything apps is, after all, alluring: The more products of any one company you use, and the better integrated those products are, the more personalized and universal its everything app can be. Google even has a second contender in the race—its Gemini model, which, at the same conference, the company said will become a 'universal AI assistant.' Whether through Search or Gemini the company seems eager to integrate as many of its products and as much of its user data as possible. On the surface, AI and the everything app seem set to dramatically change how people interact with technology—consolidating and streamlining search, social media, officeware, and more into a chatbot. But a bunch of everything apps vying for customers feels less like a race for innovation and more like empires warring over territory. Tech companies are running the same data-hungry playbook with their everything apps as they did in the markets that made them so dominant in the first place. Even OpenAI, which has evolved from a little-known nonprofit to a Silicon Valley behemoth, appears so eager to accumulate user data that it reportedly plans to launch a social-media network. The technology of the future looks awfully reliant on that of the past. Article originally published at The Atlantic