Latest news with #TheDepartmentofGovernmentEfficiency
Int'l Business Times
28-04-2025
- Business
- Int'l Business Times
'Musk Has Made a Mess': Tesla Founder's Popularity Nosedives Amid Backlash Over Trump Ties
Only 33% of U.S. adults now hold a favorable view of Elon Musk, who has become the public face of President Donald Trump's efforts to overhaul and shrink the federal government. That figure is down from 41% in December, according to a new poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Some respondents went as far as to say Musk has "made a mess of everything." Musk's personal approval trails the broader support for the Trump administration's push to cut the federal workforce, which Trump has characterized as bloated and corrupt. While about half of Americans believe Trump has gone too far in reducing government size, nearly 3 in 10 believe he is striking the right balance, and 14% wish he would go even further. Three months into Trump's second term, the public remains largely skeptical of Musk's role in the administration. Two-thirds of Americans say Musk wields too much influence in federal affairs. Polling Reflects Partisan Views Most Democrats and independents say Musk has too much power in the federal government. Even among Republicans, 37% agree he has overreached. Just 2 in 10 independents and 1 in 10 Democrats view him favorably, compared to about 7 in 10 Republicans. Meanwhile, nearly 70% of independents and 90% of Democrats think Musk has too much influence, while only 40% of Republicans agree. Republicans appear less concerned about the consequences of government downsizing. Only 11% say they are "extremely" or "very" worried that they or someone they know will be affected by cuts to agencies or grants. In contrast, two-thirds of Democrats and 44% of independents express high levels of concern. Public Voices Concern As Goals Fall Short Musk initially pledged to cut $1 trillion in government spending but admitted that The Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) projected savings for fiscal year 2026 are just $150 billion, a mere 7.5% of the original goal. The DOGE, the agency Musk helped lead, has also been criticized for overstating its accomplishments. Some Americans are critical of Musk's transition from business to government. Susan Wolf, a 75-year-old retiree from Pennsylvania, said she agrees the federal government is too large, but criticized Musk for making "a mess of everything." An independent voter, Wolf argued that success in the private sector doesn't always translate to effective government leadership, Associated Press reported. "He thinks you run a government like you run a business. And you don't do that," Wolf said. "One is for the benefit of the people, and the other is for the benefit of the corporation." Musk's Political Shift While once an advocate for climate action and a supporter of Democratic candidates, Musk has veered sharply to the right in recent years. He now frequently criticizes progressive politics, referring to what he calls the "woke mind virus," and raising alarms about illegal immigration and excessive government spending. End Of Musk Era? The poll indicates that although Musk's influence has loomed large in recent months, it may soon be coming to an end. The billionaire entrepreneur is reportedly planning to leave his post in the administration in the coming weeks. Musk has signaled that he will now reallocate more of his time to Tesla, the electric vehicle company he founded, which has seen a significant drop in revenue during his government stint. On a recent call with investors, Musk said he would only spend "a day or two per week on government matters" going forward.
Daily Mail
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
CNN reporter stuns MAGA White House correspondent famed for skimpy outfits with very frank question
CNN correspondent Donie O'Sullivan spent several days with members of the MAGA media movement this week - and asked one whether she sincerely felt she was a journalist. The pointed question was posed to Natalie Winters, the White House correspondent and co-host of Steve Bannon 's War Room. The 23-year-old is one of several MAGA-aligned correspondents now being welcomed to the White House, despite belonging to non-traditional outlets. O'Sullivan sought to hone in on this new dynamic with a feature for CNN, as Winters and others continue to paint themselves as disruptors. Others have framed them as a distraction - paving the way for O'Sullivan's frank inquiry. 'Are you a real journalist?' the 34-year-old senior CNN correspondent asked, standing opposite a woman known for wearing provocative outfits to press briefings. Winters, honing in on how many of her counterparts avoided covering Joe Biden's mental decline until the last-minute, offered a response both she and The Department of Government Efficiency shared to X. 'I'm pretty sure the group of people in there spent, what was it, four years covering for someone who was essentially dead, and that's being charitable in my description,' she said, creating a viral moment in the process. Scroll down for video: CNN correspondent Donie O'Sullivan spent several days with members of the MAGA media movement this week - and asked one whether she sincerely felt she was a journalist 'So to all those people who are apoplectic over having new media voices, you guys failed - and that's why we're here.' The barb left O'Sullivan somewhat beside himself, and briefly silent before pressing on with the interview. He spoke to several others as well, including Real America's Voice Chief White House Correspondent Brian Glenn and LindellTV White House reporter Cara Castronuova - whose boss is My Pillow inventor and conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell. O'Sullivan, at a point, posed the same question to Castronuova, 45-year-old former championship boxer and trainer on The Biggest Loser. 'Do you consider yourself a journalist?' O'Sullivan asked - to which Castronuova responded, 'yes.' Another pause ensued, after which O'Sullivan attempted to break the silence - before being interrupted by Winters. WH Correspondent Natalie Winters did not hold back. — Department of Government Efficiency News (@DOGE__news) April 23, 2025 'Seems like you took a little pause to process that,' she laughed, again leaving O'Sullivan stumbling over his words. Winters, at another point, told O'Sullivan that, if it were up to her, she'd 'kick a lot of these outlets out [of the White House briefing room].' She said of her perceived purpose: 'I view my role here more as sort of reporting on not so much the White House, but really the media. 'Our bias is not to be sycophants for President Trump,' she continued, denying pedaling propaganda for the president. 'Our bias is for our audience, which is the working class of America - the people who want to put this country first. In a separate feature penned for Politico, Winters billed the relationship between correspondents from outlets like CNN and NBC as old news, and 'new conservative media' as the future. She frequently posts theories to X, and offers discourse to stir up liberals. 'Spot the Difference Senator Van Hollen posted the picture of him and Kilmar Garcia *without* the margaritas,' she wrote earlier this month on X, referring to two sets of photos snapped of the Maryland politician and alleged MS-13 member. 'If it were up to me, I'd kick a lot of these outlets out.' Me to @CNN 🤣 — Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) April 23, 2025 Suggesting the senator omitted one photo purposely, Winters was later proven wrong when both it was revealed the salt-rimmed glasses were planted by officials. 'An Easter Egg hunt but we search for illegals instead,' she wrote in another post published Easter Sunday. In it, she is seen adjusting her hair outside the White House. She's been sharing the exchange between her and O'Sullivan for the past two weeks. CNN aired the full interview with her and other members of the White House 'new media movement' Wednesday.
Japan Times
02-04-2025
- Business
- Japan Times
The DOGE solution? 'No thanks' says Japan, with reason
The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, the Elon Musk-Donald Trump project to reform the U.S. government bureaucracy, has been described as a sledgehammer, bulldozer, meat cleaver, wrecking ball — you get the picture. Whatever the metaphor, it is a uniquely American approach to institutional reform, reflective of the larger culture within which it operates: brash, impulsive, self-confident, expansive. Again, you get the picture. While I'm fond of the saying, 'whenever I hear the word 'culture,' I reach for my gun,' it's important to take seriously arguments about culture when thinking about ways societies change — or don't. That understanding is more critical than ever at a time of wrenching transition throughout the world. Failure to grasp the essential characteristics of each country will ensure that outsiders misread the moment and fail to appreciate what is going on and why. German sociologist Max Weber first explained the link between culture and economic outcomes over a century ago. He argued that the values of reformist Christians — hard work, discipline and frugality — provided the foundation of successful capitalism and explained the West's pre-eminence. In the intervening years, capitalism became ubiquitous. National variations are then explained as the product of broader cultural forces. So, for example, the ferocious and voracious Western variant which celebrates the individual and his or her independence is the product of a frontier ethic where lonely individuals combat the forces of nature on their own. By contrast, Asian versions are more 'group-oriented,' hierarchical and respectful of norms, traditions and precedent. This stems, we are told, from the agricultural roots of these societies that demanded cooperation to harvest the crops upon which they depended. These crude stereotypes often comport with lived experience, but generalizations are invariably general. This can get squishy — and that is when that trigger finger gets itchy. When Singapore's former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, was asked what were the 'Asian values' he credited for his country's extraordinary success he replied: 'hard work, drive for education and respect for one's parents — you know, all the things that made the United States great!' Sociologists and social psychologists have done their best to provide more precision and scientific rigor to this analysis. Canadian business professor Rosalie L. Tung distinguished between 'dry' and 'wet' cultures in her 1984 study, 'Business Negotiations with the Japanese.' She argued that non-Japanese have 'dry' business relationships that are based on legal documents and the economic dimensions of the deal. By contrast, the Japanese develop 'wet' relationships that are more personal and transcend the four corners of the agreement. These are long-term arrangements that bind the parties even when conditions change. Paperwork is important, to be sure, but it's not necessarily determinative. Deals are adjusted to allow relationships to continue. Perhaps the most famous assessment of national cultures was that of Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede. A massive study of over 100,000 IBM employees yielded a six-dimensional analysis that identified the following key characteristics: power distance (acceptance of inequality), individualism, uncertainty avoidance (tolerance of unpredictability), masculinity, short versus long-term orientation and indulgence versus restraint. His results confirmed many preconceptions about Asians. Conclusions about Japan offer no surprises. The country is mid-range between a collectivist and an individualistic culture, with a long-term focus, a preference for certainty, little tolerance for large inequalities in power and disdain for indulgence; restraint is preferred. It's also quite masculine. That first finding — that the country teeters between individualism and collectivism — is a bit of a surprise, but other researchers argue that the country is in transition, with younger generations more inclined to 'selfishness' than their predecessors. That seems like an unremarkable conclusion. While Hofstede has ruled the academic roost, a new analysis has gained prominence in recent years. In 2019, University of Maryland psychology professor Michele J. Gelfand published 'Rule Makers, Rule Breakers,' which argued that a distinction between 'tight' and 'loose' cultures was the key to understanding national behaviors. Gelfand wants us to focus on social norms, 'the glue that keep(s) us together, (that) gives us our identity and help(s) us to coordinate and cooperate at such a remarkable level.' She adds that 'social norms are the key that unlocks societal order, and even the possibility of constructing a human society.' Some groups have stronger norms than others. Gelfand calls these 'tight' cultures. Those with weaker norms are 'loose.' Of course, none are pure and there is invariably a mix of both types, but she concludes that 'cultures vary in the degree to which they emphasize norms and compliance with them.' I take Gelfand seriously because Ulrike Schaede, professor of Japanese business at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California, San Diego, does. She adopted the 'tight-loose' framework in 'The Business Reinvention of Japan,' her Ohira Memorial Prize winning book. As Schaede explained, 'Tight cultures, such as Japan's are characterized by strong norms for what constitutes the 'right' behavior as well as strong mechanisms for ostracizing deviants. In contrast, loose cultures, such as that in the United States, have a much wider definition of what is acceptable and do not sanction noncompliance to nearly the same degree.' Schaede identified three norms that dominate Japanese culture: Be polite and considerate, behave appropriately and don't make trouble (or make disruptive decisions). Implicit in this reasoning is consideration of a much wider range of interests when decisions are made. This means that would-be reformers must maneuver delicately or their actions could trigger resentment and rejection. 'Being noisy, pushy or brazen will rarely yield success in Japan.' While the glacial pace of change here can infuriate non-Japanese, Schaede adds that this 'has distinct advantages for managing change. The most important is that once a decision has been made and everybody is on board, change can happen swiftly. Preparation may seem to take forever, but the execution can be expeditious.' That is the key point as I ponder the havoc unleashed by DOGE. I can't imagine a DOGE-like beast in Japan. No one can. It is utterly alien to every tradition, precedent or cultural inclination in this country. The only possible condition under which such a mechanism could exist would be foreign imposition — occupation or the fear of one (i.e., the Meiji Restoration.) My book 'Peak Japan' was intended to answer the question of whether the triple catastrophe of March 11 would catalyze change in Japan. Yet even that horrific cascade of disasters proved insufficient. The point that Schaede makes, and about which I am ambivalent, is that Japan doesn't need that change. She argues that critical reforms are occurring within businesses to prepare them for the new global competition. She urges us to forget world-beating conglomerates and instead focus on occupying vital nodes in global supply chains. By that metric, Japan is succeeding. (Slowly, but without doubt.) In contrast, there is DOGE. It may be better suited to American culture but there is no mistaking its impact on the larger society: The U.S. is literally tearing itself apart — and this is in the best performing Group of Seven economy in the world post COVID-19. Meanwhile in Japan, after three decades of stagnation, there is none of the angst, unhappiness, anger and division. The change that is taking place, despite being elemental on some levels, is far less disruptive than that occurring in other countries. For sure, it's not as fast as Western observers — critics — would like. But the culture of slow, steady, incremental transformation that accounts for all stakeholder interests appears to be far more successful in navigating vital change than one that acts by fiat from the top. To those who counter that the U.S. has produced a 'superior' economy — there are plenty of metrics to validate that adjective — I point to the larger social upheaval that has accompanied not only DOGE but the process of the Schumpeterian "creative destruction" that got us here. Neither Tung, Hofstede nor Gelfand would argue that one set of norms is 'better' than another. Instead, each is merely better suited to or reflective of the society that produced them. From this vantage point at this moment in history, however, a verdict is pretty clear. Brad Glosserman is deputy director of and visiting professor at the Center for Rule-Making Strategies at Tama University as well as senior adviser (nonresident) at Pacific Forum. His new book on the geopolitics of high-tech is expected to come out from Hurst Publishers this fall.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump suggests Elon Musk's DOGE could be shut down long before its expected closing date
The Department of Government Efficiency may end after only 130 days, well before its original schedule, as Musk's work at DOGE has become increasingly unpopular among some of the president's constituents. 'There will be a point at which the secretaries will be able to do this work and do it, as we say, with a scalpel," Trump told reporters on Monday. President Donald Trump may already be looking to pull the plug on Elon Musk's controversial DOGE project just two months into his administration. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Trump suggested his Cabinet secretaries already have learned everything from the Tesla CEO they needed to boost efficiency. Soon they would be in a position to remove the training wheels and steer their departments without the input from Musk, whose work at DOGE has become increasingly unpopular among some of the President's constituents. The President has had to defend DOGE cuts affecting voters in some Republican strongholds while simultaneously lobbying for steep tariff hikes—proposals that have dragged the stock market into the red and fueled recession fears. Trump recently voiced some displeasure with Musk, demanding the Tesla CEO adopt a more surgical approach rather than wield a chainsaw, as he did onstage with fellow cost-cutter Argentine President Javier Milei. 'A lot of the people that are working with DOGE are the secretaries—you know, the heads of the various agencies—and they've learned a lot,' Trump said during a briefing in the Oval Office, adding some of his cabinet staff may try to retain a few of the leftover DOGE personnel advising them. 'There will be a point at which the secretaries will be able to do this work and do it, as we say, with a scalpel.' The remarks came in response to a question about what may happen to DOGE once Musk's term of service ends. The world's richest man is currently classified as a Special Government Employee and is limited to working no longer than 130 days out of the entire year; this distinction is important because SGEs benefit from laxer ethics and compliance rules than regular government employees. If Trump uses Musk's impending departure to pull the plug on DOGE entirely, it would bring the project to an end long before the envisioned cutoff date on July 4, 2026, when the country celebrates its 250th Independence Day—just before the 2026 midterm election campaigning begins in earnest. In November, Trump dubbed DOGE nothing less than the 'Manhattan Project of our time' when he first confirmed that Musk would join his administration to run the unofficial body named after the ticker symbol of Musk's favorite crypto meme coin. 'Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of DOGE for a very long time,' Trump wrote of the effort to radically shrink the size of the federal government, initially by $2 trillion and later scaled down to $1 trillion. Even before he assumed his role, Musk gave a sense of the pain to come when he penned a column in which he called for 'mass headcount reductions' to the 2 million-strong federal workforce. Many of the savings in waste and fraud he claims to have unearthed have been disputed or debunked, including the famous example of a supposed $50 million payment to send condoms to Hamas terrorists. But it was his claim that the Social Security entitlement program—people's retirement funds—was the 'biggest Ponzi scheme of all time' that appeared to most worry Americans. In an effort to drum up support for his team's efforts, Musk appeared on Fox News with seven other senior assistants at DOGE last Thursday to dispute the wrecking-ball-style characterization of their cuts. 'I think we will have accomplished most of the work required to reduce the deficit by a trillion dolllars' worth in that time frame,' Musk said, asked about his 130-day term of office. 'Our goal is to reduce the waste and fraud by $4 billion a day, every day, seven days a week—and so far we are succeeding.' This story was originally featured on
Russia Today
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
USAID vs. India: How Trump's crackdown alters Washington-Delhi dynamics
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) established by US President Donald Trump under tech billionaire Elon Musk, intended to downsize the federal government, reduce wasteful expenditure, and stop the misuse of funds and corruption, has created huge waves in the US. This affects the bureaucracy at large, elements of which at the higher echelons are seen as part of the 'deep state' that Trump is battling. The activities of USAID have also come under the scanner by DOGE, and their exposure has touched India also, with the disclosure that $21 million allocated to India in 2024 for promoting higher voter turn-out in elections has been blocked. The stated purpose of these funds, to be channeled via the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS), a group based in Washington, D.C., is baffling because the turn out in Indian elections is already very high. It was 65.79% in the 2024 general election – much higher than in US elections. Trump, as is his wont, has latched on to this in his characteristic discursive style and expressed bemusement that such an allocation was made. He has commented several times on this in public and in the process has created confusion by talking of $21 million – the DOGE figure –initially and later mentioning $18 million, suggesting that kickbacks may be involved, mixing up the potential beneficiaries, saying that the purpose was to get 'someone else elected,' and asking the basic question why India would need these funds at all. It could be speculated that the funds might have been destined for opposition elements to bolster their chances in specific constituencies by promoting a higher voter turnout opposed to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). No proof of this is available as the money has not been disbursed. The Indian opposition and its sympathizers in the media have tried to obfuscate the issue by claiming that the purported funds – not $21 million but $29 million – were intended for Bangladesh to 'strengthen its political landscape,' and that a perusal of available records would support this. The problem in taking this line is that DOGE is speaking of funds not disbursed to India whereas the funds to Bangladesh have been. Be that as it may, the reference to $29 million to be spent on strengthening the political landscape in Bangladesh – a code word for political interference in the country, which saw a regime change last year – strengthens strong suspicions in India that the US had a hand in the ouster of Sheikh Hasina's from power in Bangladesh, which struck a blow to New Delhi's strategic interests in that country. The obvious political nature of this $21 million allocation has created controversy in India, with the ruling party pointing the finger at opposition elements as the intended beneficiaries, and opposition groups seeking a proper investigation of the flow of such funds into India by the government. The US has previously funded development projects in India. In the last decade, India has received about $1.5 billion as such aid. According to the BJP's data, from 2004-2013, when the previous coalition was in power, the government received $204.28 million from USAID while NGOs received $2.11 billion. Under the present coalition the government has received $1.51 million (through 2015), while NGO funding has risen to $2.57 billion. Government funding ceased after 2015, but NGOs such as Catholic Relief Services received $218 million, CARE International $218 million, and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which has published reports targeting the Modi government, has received $47 million. USAID has backed programs such as Internews, which trained Indian journalists with the objective of shaping media narratives considered unfavorable to the Indian government. The US embassy in India has organized programs for Indian journalists on countering disinformation, becoming dependable fact-checkers and preventing fake news in their respective news rooms, besides strengthening positive narratives to maintain peace and stability in the region. USAID and the US embassy funding programs to tutor the media in India are clearly objectionable as they constitute interference in its internal affairs. That USAID has engaged in activities that go well beyond development aid was always suspected but these concerns have not been publicly expressed at the official level. It is standard practice for entities such as USAID to have genuine aid programs, which give its operatives access to government departments and at the field level, and this facilitates collection of information and intelligence operations. With relations with the US steadily on the upswing since 2005, India has chosen to concentrate on the positives of ties and play down concerns about some negative features of US policy towards India. USAID has not been the focus of Indian concerns. It is the activities of US foundations that have raised concerns, be it the Ford Foundation (whose activities the government has tried to control), the Open Society Foundation, the Omidyar Foundation, and so on. The Open Society Foundation in particular, founded by magnate George Soros, has been blatantly active politically against Prime Minister Modi himself, and on the issue of democracy in India. Its link with USAID has now come out into the open. The present government has in recent years greatly tightened up on foreign funding of Indian NGOs when evidence grew that they were engaging in political and social activities against the country's interest, and also mobilizing local populations against some development projects. A whole eco-system in the West spanning governments, parliaments, media, think tanks, academia, journals, democracy and religious promotion organizations, and so on, have been targeting India ever since Modi and the BJP came to power in 2014. Before the 2024 Lok Sabha election the anti-Modi and anti-BJP campaign intensified. Established publications such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, the Economist, Le Monde, Deutsche Welle, etc. uniformly promoted a negative narrative about the state of democracy and minority issues in India, some even calling openly for voting against Modi for re-election. Some observers in India felt that this was a concerted campaign that also involved the deep state in these countries. It is not a coincidence that these attacks on Modi and the BJP government in western circles were closely aligned with the political attacks by India's opposition. Some prominent Indian opposition leaders had actually sought US interference in India's internal affairs to assist in saving its democracy. The incessant attack by an opposition leader on the links between a top industry figure in India with the Indian prime minister was echoed by George Soros at Davos as far back as January 2020. The uncovering of USAID's activities worldwide by the Trump administration and the decision to stop its operations have been explosive in nature. It has demolished a key instrument in the hands of the US establishment to further its influence abroad in overt and covert ways. Many have long suspected that the CIA uses USAID for furthering its agenda. Whether true or not, some of the revelations of DOGE about USAID's activities substantiate this suspicion. The dynamics behind this is internal US politics but the fall-out is international. Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has reacted in a relative low key to the exposure of USAID activities in India, stating that USAID was allowed into India 'in good faith,' and now suggestions are coming from America itself that it conducted some activities 'in bad faith,' which is worrisome. The government is looking into this and the facts will come out, Jaishankar asserted. With the cleaning up operations that Trump is conducting against the deep state in the US that includes the CIA and the FBI, and the short shrift he is giving to the liberal media, not to mention his lack of interest in using the human rights weapon against other countries, India's problems with the US under Trump will shift to economic issues. Washington will want to address high Indian tariffs, and reduce the US trade deficit with India by imposing matching tariffs and pressuring India to give more market access to US products, buy more US oil and gas, and acquire more US defense equipment. His anti-woke agenda will be helpful in curtailing trends towards woke-ism in India. Under the Joe Biden administration India-US relations improved palpably. However, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in tandem with the liberal press pressured India on democracy and human rights issues, to the point of frequently commenting on India's internal affairs and causing irritation in New Delhi. With Trump, the positive trajectory of relations will continue but contentiousness will shift to trade issues and 'deal making' pressures from the US.
