The Current - Elon Musk’s government cuts face growing resistance

Episode Date: February 7, 2025

There's a growing backlash against Elon Musk’s sweeping cuts to U.S. government agencies, from dismissing civil servants to threats to shut down the Department of Education. We look at how the unelected billionaire’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has been empowered by President Donald Trump — and why some critics are calling his actions a constitutional crisis.

When a body is discovered 10 miles out to sea, it sparks a mind-blowing police investigation. There's a man living in this address in the name of a deceased. He's one of the most wanted men in the world. This isn't really happening. Officers are finding large sums of money. It's a tale of murder, skullduggery and international intrigue. So who really is he? I'm Sam Mullins and this is Sea of Lies from CBC's Uncovered, available now.

This is a CBC Podcast. Hello, it's Matt here. Thanks for listening to The Current wherever you're getting this podcast. Before we get to today's show, wonder if I might ask a favor of you if you could hit the follow button on whatever app you're using. There is a lot of news that's out there these days. We're trying to help you make sense of it all and give you a bit of a break from some

of that news too. So if you already follow the program, thank you. And if you have done that, maybe you could leave us a rating or review as well. The whole point of this is to let more listeners find our show and perhaps find some of that information That's so important in these really tricky times. So thanks for all of that. Appreciate it and on to today's show He does have a good natural instinct. He's got a team of very talented people We're trying to shrink government and he can probably shrink it as well as anybody else Else if not better where we think there's a conflict or there's a problem we won't let him go

near it but he has some very good ideas and we have a lot of very other talented people also. We're bringing in the most talented people. President Donald Trump is a big fan of the tech innovator Elon Musk and as the head of Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, Musk has been very busy. He pledged to cut $2 trillion in government spending, has shuttered USAID, is slashing CIA personnel, has fired dozens of Justice Department officials who worked on the cases around January 6th, just to name a few things that he's done. This has sparked outrage in many corners of that country. Congressional Democrats rallied outside USAID's headquarters on Monday.

Elon Musk, you didn't create USAID. The United States Congress did for the American people. And just like Elon Musk did not create USAID, he doesn't have the power to destroy it. And who's gonna stop him? We are! We're going to stop him! Victoria Elliott has been keeping up with all the twists and turns of this story. She's a reporter with Wired magazine. Victoria, good morning. Good morning. I want to talk about some of the specifics of this, but broadly, how much power does Elon Musk have in the United States right now? Certainly more than any other private citizen.

In the biography that Walter Isaacson wrote about him, he talked about how Elon Musk has this thing called demon mode and he deployed this at Tesla, he deployed it at SpaceX where he works full out and I mean in the ethos of Silicon Valley moves fast and breaks things. How is that playing out here, do you think? Well, I think the clearest parallel here is what we saw when Musk took over Twitter, There was this whole scale evaluation of staff, the real emphasis on cutting roles, cutting expenditures. He also brought in people from his other companies to evaluate Twitter, to help with this management overhaul. And it really did cause absolute chaos inside and even down to the email that Twitter staff

were sent and that government workers were sent, which was titled Fork in the Road that basically encouraged people to resign. I think that's really what we're seeing. And obviously Musk on X has talked about how he works on the weekends. We've reported, my colleague Zoe Schiffer's reported how he is supposedly sleeping in the Doge offices, again, very similar to how he handled the Twitter takeover. So I think we can see in many ways a lot of parallels between how he's approached other businesses,

but very particularly I think the Twitter takeover is the clearest parallel. Who are the people that he has with him? They're called the Musk Army, and you've been doing a lot of digging into who some of these people are. Some of them are engineers in their 20s, right? Yes, I mean I think to be clear like you know, we still don't know everyone who is part of Doge. Musk, you know, made a very big show during the transition period and even before talking about how you know a Trump administration

With his help would be the most Transparent government the US had ever had and we're I think predominantly finding that to not be true you know not even on the public level of sort of You know do we as the public know who is part of Doge? But even federal workers themselves are not necessarily always clear. And I think that's particularly concerning. What we do know is that Steve Davis, who is the CEO of The Boring Company,

who also was very involved in helping Musk restructure Twitter in those early days, is part of Doge as his wife. Nicole Hollander, we know that they've brought in, people like Amanda Scales, who's now the new chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management, which is sort of the HR function of the government. She used to be at Musk's XAI.

So we're definitely seeing him bring over a lot of people from his companies and then as you mentioned the young engineers that we identified were predominantly people who had been interns or sort of young engineers at either one of Musk's companies or at one of Peter Thiel's companies. Peter Thiel is another billionaire, chairman of Palantir, which is a big data company that has a lot of contracts with the US military in particular. And Musk and Thiel are quite close.

Thiel has supported Trump since 2016. And so, you know, that is a big pattern that we're noticing as well. What kind of vetting is happening for these people who are coming in? And I ask this because one of those people who was part of this team, who apparently had access to the payment system when it comes to the Treasury Department, had to resign in part because of social media posts that came to light, one of which said, I was racist

before it was cool. Yeah, we don't know what kind of vetting these people have undergone. And, you know, I mean, I think a really important thing to note is part of the lack of transparency is the fact that, you know, it was not clear the level of access that was being given to some of these people. So our reporting found, for instance, at the General Services Administration, which deals with both the government's real estate holdings and its leases, but also manages its IT systems, that some of these young people had been given what's known as

A-suite level access, which means that they had access to every physical part of the GSA, as well as to most, pretty much everything in its IT systems. And that's a level of access that would maybe be restricted to more senior employees. And probably someone might have to go through a couple of weeks, if not a couple of months of vetting to get. At the Treasury, we found that the engineer there, the one you mentioned who resigned yesterday after being asked by the

Wall Street Journal about the social media account that appears to be linked to him, we found that he, for at least some time, appears to have had read-write access to the code in certain treasury payment systems, meaning that he could change things. He could possibly delay payments. He could change that system. And I think what's really important to understand beyond the security issues, which again, reporting from for my colleagues found that one of the other engineers we identified has links to potentially groups that were doing DDoS attacks a Distributed denial of service attacks, you know, that's its own thing and experts

You know flagged that that type of person would maybe not ever be considered for a security clearance or sensitive accessing sensitive information, But at the Treasury specifically, the person that we identified appears to have had read-write access to the code. And even if everybody is perfect, even if everybody is squeaky clean, even if everyone's intentions are absolutely pure, the reality is that these systems are complicated. and like any new job, probably take quite a while to learn. Most of these people have only been touching these systems since at most January 20th. The idea that they're changing things in these systems, moving things around is particularly

concerning because the US government is not a startup where, you know, if you mess around and maybe someone's food delivery runs late or people can't access the app for a few hours and they get frustrated, that's one thing. But you know, the government is not a space to move fast and break things because the consequences are just so enormous. So even if we're not worried about these people's backgrounds, which I think there is substantial reason to have questions about, you know, even if everybody is otherwise perfect, the fact that they're going into these systems and changing things in systems that they are

fundamentally unfamiliar with and bypassing senior staff who do have that knowledge, as Josh Marshall with Talking Points Memo sort of flagged in his reporting I think it is particularly concerning because the consequences for getting it wrong are just so large. Well the implications go well beyond the United States. We mentioned USAID. This is less than 1% the budget for USAID is less than 1% of the federal budget. The reporting suggests that of 10,000 employees, there will be 600 left by the time the cutting is done here.

Why is shutting this thing down such a priority, do you think, for Elon Musk? We can't be inside his mind. So I cannot claim to necessarily know, but I think there's a couple of things to point out. One is, if you look at Project 2025, severely reducing- This is sort of the blueprint for what a second Trump term would be. Yes. And that was created by conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, not necessarily entirely the tech industry, but certainly people in the tech industry who are aligned with Trump sort of are aligned with the goals of Project 2025

to some extent. And so if you look at Project 2025, really reducing or substantially kind of getting rid of USAID appears to be like a pretty clear goal. So I think number one, this was sort of laid out ahead of time. Number two, I think USAID is a smaller agency. So agencies are obviously like established by Congress, their budgets are established by Congress. But USAID is a smaller agency.

And I think, you know, foreign aid can be sort be a hot topic for people because most people in surveys, and I say this because I used to work in international development, a lot of Americans think that something like 25% of our budget goes towards foreign aid, which as you mentioned, it just doesn't. But when you say $100 million went to this place, that sounds like a lot of money to most people because it is a lot of money, but in comparison to the larger federal budget, it's not. And so targeting an agency that does work that a lot of Americans might otherwise feel

frustrated with or unpopular or understand is sort of an easy target. And I think really what we're seeing here is, Musk and the Trump administration doing this sort of end run around Congress. They're fundamentally testing whether or not Congress is going to push back against the fact that they are collapsing an agency that with a budget that Congress has established.

They say overall, what they're trying to do is reduce government spending and inefficiencies. Even some Democrats have said that the US government is long overdue for a look in terms of how money is being spent and perhaps where money is being wasted. Do you think there's any credence to the idea that this might be aggressive, but that some sort of approach to looking at how government works is required? You know I think that any side of the aisle you get to no one is going to tell you that every single dollar that the US government spends is perfect, that there is absolutely no waste, that there isn't

room for improvement, that there aren't ways that things could be streamlined or better. A thousand percent I think everyone would agree with that. But I think when we're talking about efficiency right now or wastefulness, the question is by whose measure? Because right now, what it seems like is that it's only Musk and Trump and maybe a few other people who are deciding what waste actually is. Is it wasteful for us to be investing in the health and wellness of people in other nations?

Well, maybe it is to them, but that is part of doing things like fighting the next pandemic, making sure that other countries have resources to fight diseases. It's part of being a good citizen of the world and building goodwill for the country. So, you know, who's defining what is wasteful and what is not? And the reality is, technically, that's supposed to be Congress. And so I do think that, you know, there's definitely conversations to be had about how we can, you know, spend money more efficiently or even, you know, say maybe the priorities have changed.

But the reality is that is supposed to be a deliberative process between representatives of the people and not the sort of unilateral decision-making of a small handful of individuals, particularly a billionaire, to make that choice. Victoria, we'll leave it there. I'm really glad to have you here. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Victoria Elliott is a reporter with Wired magazine. She's in New York City. When Derek Johnson was diagnosed with cerebral palsy, his family thought that he would never

be able to speak. And then they met Professor Anna Stubblefield, and she believed that with the right technique, he could say what was on his mind. But what began as an opportunity turned into accusations of sexual assault. I'm Kathleen Goldthar, and this week on Crime Story, we dive into the complicated questions surrounding the doc, Tell Them You Love Me. Find Crime Story wherever you get your podcasts. The actions of Elon Musk with Doge are just some of the many extraordinary and enormous changes made by the new Trump administration. It's only been in power for two and a half weeks now. And some of these moves have prompted a growing number of lawsuits joining us now to help

understand which of these actions have a basis in law and which may not. His name is Daniel Farber. He's the author of Contested Ground, How to Understand the Limits on Presidential Power. He's also a professor of law and director of the Edley Center on Law and Democracy at the University of California, Berkeley. Good morning to you. Good morning. We just heard about what Elon Musk is up to with the Office of Personnel Management and what he's trying to do broadly. There are questions as to the legality of these actions.

Do you think broadly that Elon Musk is breaking the law? I guess the short answer to that is yes. I think he's doing a lot based on his experience in the private sector where the owner of a business has tremendous legal discretion. And I think what he's going to be discovering is that the US government's quite different and that breaking things

is likely to get you hauled into court. The president says that Elon Musk is doing this work with his approval and Republicans in Congress are saying that there has been, in their words, a gross exaggeration in the media about what is actually happening. Have a listen to House Speaker Mike Johnson speaking at a news conference on Wednesday. The executive branch of government in our system has the right to evaluate how executive branch agencies are operating and to ensure that not only the intent of Congress in funding mechanisms, but also the stewardship

of precious American taxpayer dollars is being handled well. That's what they're doing by putting a pause on some of these agencies and by evaluating them, by doing these internal audits. That is a long overdue, much welcome development. That's what the American people demand and deserve. That's what the people of America demand and deserve, that Donald Trump won the election and that he has the right in some ways to do this. How much power does the executive branch

of government have? Well, I guess the short answer to that is a lot. The president in particular, I think, has gained power fairly steadily over the last 40 or 50 years, partly because of court decisions, partly because of politics, and partly because Congress has passed some important laws that give the president very broad discretion. So yes, there is a lot of power there, but there are also limits. And I think that

the Trump administration's view of presidential power goes well beyond what I think the law will support. One of the reasons why there is that outrage, we can talk about some specific instances in a moment, but it's because it is Elon Musk, we've discussed perhaps one of the most, if not the most powerful unelected person in the United States right now, who seems to be wielding the hacksaw as he goes through various levels of government. People have called this a coup.

Do you think this is a coup? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. I think it's certainly a power grab, but there are a lot of safeguards still in place and I think I don't know whether Musk and Trump are you know intending a complete takeover or not but I don't think they're really that close to getting there. Let's talk about some of the safeguards in a moment but if you look at some of the specific things that have happened if you suspend funding to the US Agency for International Development, USAID, and you place thousands and thousands of workers

on administrative leave, is there basis in law to do something like that? Well, I think to begin with, the idea that they're able to abolish AID just seems false. AID has congressional sanction and congressionally assigned functions that the president cannot just brush away. The president also has said that he believes he has the power to just stop funding anything he doesn't

like. That's called impoundment. I think the overwhelming view of constitutional experts is to the contrary. There is a statute that limits his ability to make those kinds of funding decisions. And I think constitutional law scholars, not 100%, but by a very large margin think that statute is constitutional. I think also some of the specific actions that he's taken in the personnel realm seem dubious under the laws governing the personnel system. I think there are already a slew of lawsuits being filed against a whole bunch of his different activities.

You can never be 100% sure what the courts will rule, but I think he's going to find that there's a real impediment to his ability to just try to change the executive branch with a sweep of the pen or a few tweaks to the software. Let me ask you just about one other specific one, and that's firing Justice Department officials who worked on legal cases against the sitting president. Is it legal to do something like that? I think in general, to the extent that

the person is not protected by civil service, there is a lot of discretion to fire people with not that much restraint. If there's civil service protection, it's a different matter. Of course, just the fact that it might be legal to do something doesn't mean by any means that it's a good idea.

Do you think he wants some of these things to be tested in court? He issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship and many people at the point of that coming out said this is not going to pass legal muster. It ended up now that it's been blocked by two federal judges. Do you think he wants these things to be tested in court? I have a hard time figuring out his psychology.

I think yes, in the sense that I think that they would like to get this issue to the Supreme Court. I don't know whether he believes that this is an easy win for him in the Supreme Court or whether the idea is just to raise the issue, attract a lot of public attention, and not worry too much about whether it stands up in court. I'm just not sure if it's psychology. I tend to think that he's just misinformed about what's likely to happen in the Supreme Court, but it could all be a ploy of some kind.

Is your country facing a constitutional crisis right now? That's a term that gets thrown around a lot. I don't, again, I don't think we are quite at that stage where you could say that, you know, sort of the constitutional system is at the verge of, you know, possible collapse. What would be the threshold? Well, one that I think people have mentioned is the administration's refusal to obey a court order or in particular a Supreme Court decision, I think that would be very clearly. Has he not done that already with TikTok?

Saying the Supreme Court said TikTok needs to be shut down and now it's just going to be sold off. And he issued an executive order allowing TikTok to get back online within essentially 24 hours. Yeah, I don't think that that quite reaches that level. What the Supreme Court said was that a statute Congress passed about TikTok was constitutional. It's the statute, not the Supreme Court, that is supposed to be getting TikTok shut down.

I do think that he is flouting the law by giving this delay, but Congress doesn't seem to be complaining about it. So I think that's borderline, at least. I think if he were to disobey a law over the clear desire of Congress, and that was held to be illegal and he still continued to do it, that would be quite clearly a constitutional crisis. I don't want to sound like I'm downplaying the importance of what's going on. I think it is creating real risks to our democratic system. But I guess I would reserve, I wrote a book about Abraham Lincoln, so my idea of a constitutional crisis is when troops start firing on federal facilities and we're just nowhere near that

kind of crisis. Fair enough. Just fine, I have to let you go. But I mean, we here in this country are watching things very closely in part because you're the United States and you're our next door neighbors. Also because that relationship between Canada and the U S is complicated at the very least right now.

How worried should neighbors and allies be about the rule of law? Do you think in your country? I, you know, I think, uh, worried, I would say, uh, I don't think, uh, I would hit the panic button at this point. I think the sort of erratic behavior of the president quite apart from sort of constitutional issues is something I would certainly worry about

as a neighboring country and something I worry about as a citizen. So I would say keep a watch on things and don't be complacent about what's happening in the US by any means, but don't on the other hand, go to, don't view it as like a pending emergency, which I don't think it as like a pending emergency, which I don't think has become yet. Daniel, good to speak with you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Daniel Farber is a professor of law at UC Berkeley, director of the Edley Center on Law and Democracy. His latest book is called Contested Ground, How to Understand the Limits on Presidential Power. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.