Elon Musk has never been one to shy away from controversy or bold ideas, but his foray into government reform may have been one of his most ambitious—and contentious—ventures yet. The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE as it was dubbed, was launched with much fanfare and a wink to internet culture, but its journey under Musk’s leadership has been anything but straightforward. Now, as the dust settles on a tumultuous year, the legacy of DOGE—and Musk’s role within it—is under intense scrutiny, with supporters and critics alike debating whether the project was a revolutionary leap or just another meme gone awry.
According to BBC, DOGE was created by executive order on President Donald Trump’s first day back in the White House, January 20, 2025, with Musk at the helm. The goal was as audacious as the man leading it: modernize the federal government, cut bureaucracy, and save up to $2 trillion a year by slashing federal jobs and shutting down programs deemed inefficient. The very name, DOGE, was, as Musk later admitted, “made-up, based on internet suggestions.” It was a tongue-in-cheek nod to the meme cryptocurrency Dogecoin, but the stakes were all too real.
Musk wasted no time making waves. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, he wielded a chainsaw onstage—a dramatic symbol of the cost-cutting ethos he intended to bring to Washington. The message was clear: the era of bloated government spending was over, at least if DOGE had anything to say about it.
But even for a man used to shaking up industries, the scale and resistance Musk faced in Washington proved formidable. DOGE pushed for massive reductions in the federal workforce, shuttering entire agencies such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and cutting programs across the board. The group moved at a breakneck pace, sometimes too fast for the system to cope. Some actions, like firing bird flu officials at the US Department of Agriculture, were quickly reversed after legal challenges and public outcry. As BBC reported, the Trump administration had to rehire those officials within days, highlighting the pitfalls of rapid, sweeping reforms.
Despite these setbacks, DOGE’s official website, last updated on October 4, 2025, claimed to have saved an estimated $214 billion so far that year. While this figure fell short of the original $2 trillion target, Musk remained adamant that the initiative had made a difference. In a nearly hour-long interview on The Katie Miller Podcast, Musk reflected on his tenure, saying, “I mean no, I don’t think so,” when asked if he would lead DOGE again. He elaborated, “I would have worked in my companies, essentially. They wouldn’t have been burning the cars.”
Musk’s comments referenced a wave of vandalism that targeted Tesla showrooms and vehicles, particularly the much-hyped Cybertruck, earlier in 2025. His highly visible political role in the Trump administration sparked global protests and boycotts against Tesla. By April, Tesla’s sales had fallen to their lowest level in three years, with the company warning investors that “changing political sentiment” could continue to hurt demand. It was a stark reminder that for all his business acumen, the world of politics comes with its own set of risks and repercussions.
Yet, Musk was not entirely pessimistic about DOGE’s impact. As quoted by CTV News, he described the project as “a little bit successful.” He explained to Miller, “You really want the least amount done by government as possible,” adding that DOGE had “stopped a lot of funding that really just made no sense.”
Political observers have noted that while DOGE achieved some cost-cutting successes, its methods and speed often provoked backlash from both the public and within government ranks. Some saw it as a necessary jolt to a stagnant system, while others decried the loss of key services and the chaos that followed abrupt firings and program shutdowns. According to BBC, some of DOGE’s most aggressive moves were met with legal fights or were quickly reversed, underscoring the challenges of enacting sweeping change in a complex bureaucracy.
The political fallout wasn’t confined to policy debates. Musk’s relationship with President Trump, once seemingly unbreakable, soured dramatically in June 2025. After Musk criticized a Trump-backed spending bill, the two engaged in a public war of words on social media. At one point, Trump threatened to order DOGE to investigate Musk’s own business dealings with the federal government. The feud was short-lived, though; by November, the pair appeared reconciled, with Musk attending a White House dinner alongside Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman on November 18, 2025. In his podcast interview, Musk even described Trump as “the funniest person I know” and praised his “great sense of humour.”
For Musk, the personal toll of his government stint was significant. Not only did his political involvement damage Tesla’s bottom line, but it also led to a highly publicized falling-out with the president and relentless media attention. Musk’s donations to the Trump campaign and frequent appearances at White House events made him a lightning rod for both praise and criticism. As BBC reported, Musk was a fixture at the White House for months, speaking at cabinet meetings and standing behind the president at major events. But the very visibility that made him a powerful advocate for reform also made him—and his businesses—a target.
Looking back, Musk’s assessment of DOGE is tempered with a dose of realism. “We were somewhat successful,” he said, acknowledging the project’s achievements while conceding its limitations. The initiative’s future remains uncertain, especially after Musk’s departure in May 2025. Political hurdles, legal challenges, and shifting public opinion suggest that any lasting transformation will require adaptation and, perhaps, a less polarizing figure at the helm.
For now, the story of DOGE stands as a cautionary tale about the collision of Silicon Valley idealism and Washington pragmatism. It’s a reminder that even the boldest ideas can falter when confronted with the entrenched realities of government—and that, in politics, even a meme can have real-world consequences.
