Efficiency for whom?

In the recent budget battle, ignorance, penny-pinching and self-interestedness collide.

With the inauguration of President Trump imminent, the debate over the federal budget is serving as a prelude for how the incoming president and his allies will seek to reshape federal spending. During this battle, the word ‘efficiency’ has become something of a conservative buzzword thanks in part to its inclusion in the acronym for DOGE (the unofficial Department of Government Efficiency) led by two men: Elon Musk —one of the federal government’s largest contractors— and Vivek Ramaswamy. As will be made clear, their conception of efficiency is juvenile, self-interested, and often rooted in their own ignorance of what is actually contained in the federal budget.

Let’s begin with ignorance. It is well-established that the original bipartisan budget bill was tanked merely hours before it was due to be voted on because Elon Musk chose to Tweet in opposition to it, fueled by misunderstandings of what the deal contained. Many of these misunderstandings were brilliantly documented (and corrected) in a recent New York Times piece. Elon believed that the budget included appropriations for a “$3 billion NFL stadium in Washington, D.C.” when in fact it did not provide a cent for that purpose. (Elon later edited his Tweet about this to remove the $3 billion figure). He stated that the bill included “$60B to Ukraine” and “Mask/vaccine mandates” which it did not. And perhaps most bizarrely, he alleged the bill was “funding bioweapons labs.” The screenshot of the bill he used to substantiate this claim actually refers to biocontainment labs in the US, like the one at Duke University working on a universal flu vaccine.¹

A Fox News writeup of Musk and Ramaswamy’s gripes excludes the above factually-challenged examples and instead focuses on fiscal minutiae that account for a trivial fraction of the federal budget. It notes that the budget bill would have given members of Congress a 4% pay raise, marking their first raise in fifteen years. The piece also notes opposition to $100 billion in disaster relief for victims of hurricanes Helene and Milton, an $8 billion commitment to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge, a roughly $80 million expenditure on the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, and provisions that exempt Congress members (who have government health insurance) from needing to purchase additional health insurance on the Obamacare exchange.²

My second charge is that DOGE’s conception of efficiency is self-interested. This is most readily seen in DOGE’s approach to the defense budget, the largest discretionary item in the federal budget at nearly $850 billion. While at first signaling that perhaps defense cuts were in the realm of possibility —providing a bit of excitement for progressives Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna, both of whom relished the opportunity to cut the Pentagon’s bloated budget— the Pentagon has made it through budget negotiations unscathed thus far. This is unsurprising given that the defense budget is a major source of Musk’s government contracts. Great reporting by Donald Shaw has also documented how a “political group funded by Elon Musk that until recently employed one of his partners in the Department of Government Efficiency is deeply tied to a lobbying firm that helps several of the largest Defense contractors secure contracts from the Pentagon and appropriations from Congress.”³ Musk also worked to eliminate a provision meant to discourage American investment in Chinese industry— an obvious conflict of interest given Musk’s vast business presence in China.⁴

Lastly, I called DOGE’s attitude toward efficiency juvenile. What I had in mind was Elon’s celebration of the new continuing resolution. The best thing he could note about it was that it had fewer pages than the previous one, an accolade a grade schooler might use to endorse a work of fiction. The new budget bill is shorter, but that fact is not relevant. Both budgets were too long to be read by a layperson, but any truly interested party could “control f” their way around either document and find what they were looking for. Furthermore, the amount of spending permitted by both budget bills was roughly the same. What matters about these budgets is their contents, not their length.

The contents of the new continuing resolution (and particularly what was left out of it) provide more insight into the Trump camp’s views on efficiency— or at least who they’re willing to forget about in their rush to reduce the budget’s page count. Among those left out were the first responders and firefighters who sustained chronic ailments while responding to the 9/11 attacks; provisions for their health care were dropped from the new budget. Among the roughly hundred other bipartisan measures dropped from the budget were provisions for funding pediatric cancer research, limiting junk fees, and constraining the abusive power of pharmacy benefit managers.⁵

This continuing resolution will expire in mid-March, whereupon we’ll have another debate about which government spending is efficient and which isn’t, likely filled with more misinformation about various government expenditures while useful and socially beneficial measures are quietly cut in the effort to reduce the deficit.

However, there are two looming issues that render this battle relatively trivial, at least in fiscal terms. First, if Trump’s congressional allies go after major entitlement programs (Medicare and Social Security), like Musk and other Trump allies have hinted they would, then any savings made elsewhere will likely look small in comparison. Second, Trump’s 2025 tax bill could balloon the deficit to new heights. His 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act led to a near doubling of the federal deficit from roughly $550 billion to $1 trillion before the Coronavirus pandemic. It’s not clear what a new Trump tax bill would do as he’s made dozens of competing promises regarding taxes (including eliminating taxes on tips, Social Security, and all income.) If his previous tax bill provides any hints, it’s likely that its benefits will be concentrated in favor of America’s wealthiest residents.

Well over half of the federal government’s $1.25 trillion in spending in FY25 has been on entitlement programs, military spending, or paying the interest on previously-accrued debt. Source: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/

Trump and his allies clearly recognize that the incoming president is likely to blow up the deficit. On Truth Social, Trump has been calling on Republicans to eliminate the debt ceiling, a call they’ve resisted. But behind closed doors, they’re considering expanding the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion dollars in return for committing to later eliminating $2.5 trillion in unspecified spending (Note: it’s hard to imagine this could be done without going after entitlement programs).⁶

Conservatives have presented their call for ‘efficiency’ in government as simple common sense. And, of course, there are unnecessary boondoggles in the federal budget which we could do without. But they’re overwhelmingly small potatoes and conservatives are more likely to redistribute that plunder than they are to eliminate it. The Republican-controlled Congress may well cut some questionable grants in support of the arts and scientific research or pork projects in Democratic cities, but they’re just as likely to shovel more funds toward charter schools, reactionary witch hunts, and pork projects in their own states. In the first weeks of what is sure to be a long budget battle, Trump and DOGE have shown us that they are self-interested, feckless, and expecting the deficit to increase under the incoming administration. Let’s hope in the coming months they’ll exhibit some competence or caution, or at least the political instincts not to go after America’s beloved social safety nets.

1. These examples come from Qiu, Linda. “Assessing Elon Musk’s criticism of the government spending deal.” The New York Times. December 19, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/19/us/politics/elon-musk-spending-bill-fact-check.html

2. Phillips, Morgan. “Here’s what’s in the spending bill that’s drawing the ire of Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy.” Fox News. December 19, 2024. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/heres-whats-spending-bill-thats-drawing-ire-elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy

3. Shaw, Donald. “DOGE’s ties to the military-industrial complex.” Sludge. December 23, 2024. https://readsludge.com/2024/12/23/doges-ties-to-the-military-industrial-complex/

4. McHardy, Martha. “Republican spending bill proposal Is amazing for China, and for Musk.” Newsweek. December 20, 2024. https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-china-continuing-resolution-budget-deal-proposal-2004103

5. Kuttner, Robert. “How Musk Outmaneuvered Trump.” The American Prospect. December 21, 2024. https://prospect.org/politics/2024-12-21-how-musk-outmaneuvered-trump-government-funding-china/

6. Scholtes, Jennifer. “House Republicans float a debt limit, spending pact deal — with themselves.” Politico. December 20, 2024. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/12/20/congress/gop-debt-limit-deal-details-00195671