Trump and Musk’s Dismemberment of Government: Questioning the Savings and What You Can Do

American Eclectic posts articles twice a month, on the 1st and 15th. This is the third year of publication; previously published articles can be found on my site.

March 1, 2025

For years, I have taught courses that address government reform and reorganization. In addition, I dealt with this issue as a consultant for several local governments. The basic starting point when I was asked to look at a situation was understanding what was wanted. A local government official or several felt they saw a circumstance that needed to be addressed. I would sit down with the local officials to get a sense of what they saw as problems that needed to be addressed, and sometimes, we discussed the parameters of what could be achieved, and I would make some proposals regarding how I would proceed. Then, I would head off to interview workers, administrators, and citizens who interacted with selected local government offices. It took time, and I returned to the local government officials to give insight, observations, and proposals. I always needed to consider that I could only do so much. Sometimes, I realized all I was doing was reinforcing what local government officials already believed and wanted to do, and I supported that position. There were times when I could tell whatever I proposed was going nowhere. From these consulting situations, I at least developed an understanding of the difficulties involved in bringing about change for the better. The purpose was always that any change/reform/reorganization would help the government function better—not always easy to determine.

From what I am reading regarding Musk and his team of kids romping/wandering/rampaging through government agencies and departments, there appears to be an assumption that the government will automatically function better by cutting jobs. There are vague statements that the American people want a smaller government, which means eliminating jobs so that it saves money, and with savings comes a better, more efficient government. Musk has created a simple cause and effect, which might be entirely wrong. With little thought behind Musk’s slash-and-burn approach to government change, which bears no resemblance to reform or reorganization, it is understandable to question what is going on. One worker stated, “Are they really making the government more efficient if they’re getting rid of all these people who do things that are required by law?” It is not just an issue of figuring out what Musk is doing now but where it is headed. The question that formerly employed government workers raises is: Where will the government be six months from now, one year from now? How long Musk will continue to slash and burn his way through the government is debatable. As one piece stated, “it’s become increasingly clear inside the White House that Musk will…stay around as long as President Donald Trump lets him.”

It seems apparent that Musk had every intention before he started that he would state that his work would save money—and by doing that, it would justify all the chaos he and his Team Kids are causing, and that it would translate into efficiency. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) claimed it saved $8 billion from one situation. But it was determined to be $8 million, creating the impression that Musk is playing fast and loose with what he is doing and that rigorous assessment on his part is not woven into his march through dismantling government agencies and departments. In another situation, Musk took credit for a school building that was sold when Biden was President to the tune of $4 million. Furthermore, it appears that saving money through uncovering waste and fraud may be subjective. As one analyst said, “They are willfully ignorant at best of what actual fraud is. It threatens the government and what existing controls are in place.”

Musk has a website titled Department of Government Efficiency: The People Voted for Major Reform, and I find it confusing to figure out how to interpret what I am looking at. Under Savings, this site claims:

DOGE’s estimated savings are $55 billion, a combination of fraud detection/deletion, contract/lease cancellations, contract/lease renegotiations, asset sales, grant cancellations, workforce reductions, programmatic changes, and regulatory savings.

This is a mouthful, and even if you want to praise and applaud Musk for his actions, you should still be able to recognize when someone is trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Musk’s website updated the $55 billion to $65 billion a few days ago. Updates on savings will be revised on the site twice a week. As I post this, I see changes to this website so that updates will require close examination. Since there are concerns about how he counts savings, the website added the following:

There may be discrepencies between FPDS and the posted numbers, the latter of which originate directly from the agency contracting officials. If you would like to report a potential discrepancy, please DM the @DOGE X account.

We are supposed to believe Musk found wasteful spending that no one else ever uncovered—and he did it all in a few weeks. Or was the waste lying in plain sight, and all that was needed was someone strong enough to wipe it away?

To take one example, in this list, under Savings, there is a reference to contract/lease renegotiations—how are those savings now if there is a current contract that needs to expire? In addition, am I led to believe that Musk or one of the kids on his team met with some unknown number of building owners, and they quickly renegotiated a lower monthly or annual payment for the federal government to rent their space?

In addition, the term “programmatic changes” is incredibly vague, and I have no idea what is covered here. Under one section in this DOGE site, there is a reference to a West Publishing Corporation. Below it, “Savings: $0, Total Contract: $21,382,” and then it states, “RENEW WEST PRINT SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR VARIOUS LEGAL TITLES FOR EIGHT DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS IN EVERY CFTC LOCATION.” What does this even mean? If there are no savings, why is it in there?

Elsewhere, the Department of Justice must have a building it leases in Cincinnati, Ohio, and they lease 3,068 square feet of this building. Opening this up, it states: “$30,295 Total Savings, $75,739 Annual Lease Cost.” Was there a sudden renegotiation of the space leased within this building? An online site through the Chamber of Commerce that helps businesses approach renegotiating leases states:

Before you start trying to renegotiate, it is essential to understand the terms of your lease agreement clearly. A typical provision in some leases is the “force majeure” clause, which can help in the case of an event that can’t be reasonably anticipated. COVID-19 shutdowns of businesses, for example, could be an example of force majeure.

Elsewhere within this site, it states:

As you begin the renegotiation process, it will be vital to research and document local trends. If landlords have renegotiated with nearby tenets and offered altered terms, that information could help you make a stronger case for changing your own lease’s terms. This research also includes figuring out exactly what you want to ask your landlord for, including how much you want rent reduced, if you want rent abated for a certain number of months, if you would like to sublease space or if you can afford to offer a profit-sharing agreement in exchange for more favorable terms.

Am I supposed to believe that I guess (because that is all I can do), that Musk or Team Kids called up the owner of the building in Cincinnati and, essentially, dictated new lease terms, and the building’s owner accepted, and that was it? And, I might add, all this within a few weeks.

In another situation under Musk’s Wall of Receipts, the Department of Health and Human Services is leasing a building in Atlanta, Georgia. The square footage is 119,812. Musk’s site on this lease states: “$2,060,883 Total Savings, $2,473,060 Annual Lease Cost.” Then, it states, “Lease Termination sent 1/27/25, effective 5/31.25.” The only way I can interpret this is that Musk decided to break a lease contract. If that is the case, has the building owner sued the federal government, or is it the General Services Administration (GSA), which would be the federal department that oversees lease contracts? The standard GSA lease agreement contains a clause that the government can exercise the right of early termination. It seems that DOGE is using this approach to end lease agreements. But the quick end to a lease agreement had to surprise the building’s owner, and they must be scrambling about what to do regarding lost revenue.

Then, there is another entry under the Wall of Receipts. The site states:

Kansas City, Bureau of Prisons

$1,275,000 (Total Savings) $900,000 (Annual Lease Cost)

Lease Termination sent 1/22/25, effective 2/1/26. Tenant will relocate into another local building.

I assume the “tenant” is the Kansas City office of the Department of Prisons. If this is the case, a Kansas City Business Journal article noted that the decision to exit two office buildings was made before Trump became President. Is Musk taking credit for this savings? A website from Kansas City stated that the GSA leased three floors of an office building, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons had one of those floors.

I expect multiple lawsuits as a result of these lease agreement cancellations. The money the owners receive from the federal government leases is undoubtedly needed to cover the debt financing. Many of these building owners assumed they were dealing with a government that acted rationally. They knew of the early termination clause but never took it seriously. Suddenly, the economic impact of buildings across the country going empty and having no money to cover the payments on those locations will have financial consequences. One person familiar with the lease terminations stated:

These were probably not surprises for the building owners, given that typical negotiations for GSA leases that are expiring commence at the latest 12 months prior to expiration but typically 24 to 18 months prior.

This quote gives the impression of a smooth transition to a massive downsizing, which might not be the case. The GSA has been directed to end lease agreements with approximately 7,500 locations nationwide. The economic impact of this type of action cannot be underestimated. Just think about local businesses affected by ending 7,500 lease agreements. How many local restaurants will be affected? How many workers will lose their jobs because they no longer have government employees or offices as customers?

Musk has stated that federal offices are “mostly empty,” and some evidence supports this position. A 2023 General Accountability Office (GAO) report noted that of 24 federal agencies they examined, they concluded that “federal agencies have long struggled to determine how much office space they need to fulfill their missions." This report saw a positive side to the federal government releasing unused property and selling it for private use. The federal government is exempt from local taxes, but local taxes could be collected if these buildings are sold for private use. Local governments having a new source of revenue can be a good thing.

One way, however, to understand some of the problems that the American economy could face is that default rates in the office space sector are high, Musk and what he is doing will probably make it worse. As one report stated:

The office sector is already in a depression, with default rates that exceed those during the worst moments of the Financial Crisis. Putting this inventory on the market for sale is going to weigh on the already collapsed prices of older office buildings – prices of 50-70% below the last sale before the pandemic are now common.

The “Financial Crisis” refers to the Great Recession of 2007-2008. Do you remember when the stock market was at 13,264.82 on December 31, 2007, and fell to 7,997.28 on November 19, 2008? Pension funds were affected, and many people had to reconsider extending their work and not retiring.

Again, the GSA, the federal department charged with leases, pays $5.2 billion annually to private sector building owners. In Kansas City, 6 percent of all office space is leased by the federal government; how will ending these lease agreements impact the office space market locally? In Los Angeles, federal government leases account for only 1 percent of the market, so the impact of leases ending could be insignificant. However, the point is that different regions of the country will feel the effects of Musk’s work differently.

When ending leases, it is essential to consider them spread out over several years. The focus right now is on Musk and what he is doing, but will there be possible phases of firing government employees and ending leases over the next few years? If you fire more employees, there is a reason to end more leases since less office space is needed.

Musk’s straightforward approach to defining savings runs into the problem of the adverse effects on businesses and local economies.

Under Savings on the official website, there is a reference to regulatory savings. During Trump’s first term as President, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projected that $18 billion would (eventually) be saved related to regulatory costs. This was estimated (or, more accurately, guesstimated) by looking at the savings spread over several years. One report from November 2019 addressed how the OMB estimates savings:

Federal agencies usually estimate the costs and benefits of major regulatory actions. Major deregulatory actions have an estimate for savings, which would be “benefits” of the deregulatory action or “costs” of the original regulatory action. The White House Office of Management and Budget compiles the estimates for those actions, categorizing as “deregulatory” any actions that have total costs less than zero. OMB projects $18 billion in eventual regulatory cost savings from actions taken in fiscal year 2019, though the final numbers are not in yet.

If it is difficult to read this and determine what it all means in English, it should be. The point is not to pay too much attention to this very confusingly written statement from 2019 but to understand that measuring or determining actual savings is not as easy as it seems. In the case of Musk throwing numbers around, we see much that looks like hucksterism. I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge if you want; if you believe that government waste is easy to spot and even more straightforward to eliminate, I can give you a fair price for selling you the bridge.

Some of Musk’s actions reminded me of previous presidents who tried to address waste and inefficiency. Ronald Reagan signed an executive order in June 1982 that created the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (Commonly called the Grace Commission after the chairman, J. Peter Grace). The basic aim of this commission was to identify waste and inefficiency and suggest ways to improve government operations. Reagan stated of this commission, “Be Bold. We want your team to work like tireless bloodhounds. Don’t leave any stone unturned in your search to root out inefficiency.” Ultimately, the commission worked for 18 months and issued a report that ran 47 volumes covering 23,000 pages and recommended 2,478 cost-cutting proposals. They estimated that the government would save $424 billion over three years. One suggestion focused on federal pension reform, which this report estimated would save $60 billion over three years.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the GAO (then called the Government Accounting Office) * issued a report evaluating the Grace Commission’s findings and concluding that the savings estimate was wrong and that the amount that could be saved was one-third the $424 billion Grace Commission figure.

The Grace Commission provides an interesting contrast to Musk’s actions. First, the Grace Commission spent a year and a half examining what they saw as problems and thoughtfully put together a report that addressed their findings: Musk crashed in the door and proceeded to do whatever he wanted as quickly as he wanted. I suspect that while Trump has his perceived grievances against the government—that one he is supposed to represent—Musk provided somewhat deeper thinking about how to proceed with what Trump wanted to be done. Second, I doubt any CBO or GAO reports will evaluate Musk’s actions, what he is doing and will be doing, and whether it has some positive or adverse effects. Trump does not appear to be the type who wants a government organization to evaluate what he has authorized and wants done.

We seem to be waiting for the smoke to clear and then figuring out how to pick up the pieces. Americans have gotten so used to hearing that the government does not work, and they have become acclimated to believing it is true without questioning it. If people regularly only get their news from Fox News or News Max or the nonsense that passes for news on talk radio, then it is understandable that they stop thinking and believe what they are told. A Nobel-prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, wondered whether Trump’s action on tariffs and Musk’s actions, such as terminating contracts, could lead to a return to the stagflation of the 1970s. As Stiglitz stated:

The government has a huge number of contracts and we’re just tearing them up. How much risk do you [as a foreign investor] want? The US has become, I would say, a scary place to invest.

Forget the term trickle-down economies; consider trickle-down uncertain futures. It may look impressive when government employees are cut here, there, and everywhere, but the impact on the public has not yet been felt. There is already an increase in people filing for unemployment in the Washington, D.C. area. Considering that some 200,000 federal workers are classified as probationary if they are all fired, there will be a big uptick in filings. If up to 200,000 federal workers are fired, realize there are approximately 164 million people employed, so 200,000 is a tiny percentage of the total (although with resignations, retirement, and early retirement, the figure could be 475,000), so the national unemployment rate will not change significantly. The problem I am having, and I expect the same from anyone trying to understand where all this is headed, is the email Musk sent instructing federal employees to justify what they did for a week in February. If I understand correctly, this was directed at everyone (minus some working on sensitive information), so probationary and all those employees who assume they have some job security, which implies Trump’s goal is to remove more than just probationary employees: The firings could get worse than anyone is expecting. The term “probationary” is somewhat vague since people who worked for the federal government for years were fired not just recent hires.

The firings are heralded as good because of the savings that come from letting employees go. But that is extremely simple thinking.

As I pointed out above, if 7,500 leases are terminated, that will affect more than just buildings and create empty spaces. The same will be valid with increased government firings; small businesses that supply the government will be affected. Billions in federal government spending on products, services, and consulting go to the private sector, and about 25 percent of that flows to small businesses, which will be affected by government spending cuts. The Brookings Institution estimates that 7.5 million workers have private-sector jobs connected to federal government spending. Again, it will take time to figure out the ramifications of what Musk is doing on Trump’s behalf.

All those savings Musk proclaims can only make sense in a fantasy world with no implications or repercussions associated with his cuts. Ignore his PR statements about how much has been and will be saved. Give it time; a trickle-down effect will come, not in a good way, and suddenly, the glory of federal money saved will not look all that impressive. Cuts in government spending can have an impact on economic growth. I use the word “can” because studies focusing on the position that cutting government spending will somehow stimulate more spending in the private sector have been written for years—how that would happen is not always clear. Suppose interest rates come down simultaneously as Musk carries out Trump’s dream of eliminating government employees, programs, and some agencies and departments. In that case, there might be a reason to say the economy could benefit from what Musk is doing, but Trump’s actions with tariffs can lead to inflation, and inflation can lead to higher interest rates. Trump’s dual policies of slashing and burning the government while pushing tariffs might work against each other. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) cut interest rates three times in 2024. There might be interest rate cuts in 2025, although the expectation is that they will be less than they were in 2024. Add in the ripple effect that cutting government spending will have on figuring out all that will be affected by Musk’s rampaging through government offices beyond government employees losing their jobs. The consequences to the American economy can be severe.

What Can Be Done to Counter Trump or Is It Musk

The late Tip O’Neill (D., MA) was Speaker of the House from 1977 to 1987. O’Neill had a famous statement he repeated often, “All politics is local.” In a book he published in 1994 with that statement in the title, he referred to a meeting with Lee Iacocca, CEO of the Chrysler Corporation, during the 1980s. O’Neill told Iacocca how to get Congress to become interested in a bailout of Chrysler. He said that in every Congressional district, there are car dealers and businesses that depend on those car dealers. The idea was to have all these people who would be affected, probably by losing their jobs, contact their members of Congress; they wanted Congress to support a bailout of Chrysler. In essence, all politics is local.

This same strategy is needed now. Government employees who have lost their jobs, family members and friends, and businesses that will be affected by Musk and Team Kids' actions need to contact their Republican members of Congress and let them know everything Trump and Musk are doing will mean that in the 2026 Congressional elections, they will vote Democrat. Even if they want to remain Republican and vote Republican in the 2028 election, the pressure has to be placed on Republicans in Congress.

Trump is a lame duck. Some foolish Republican in the House introduced a bill to allow Trump to run for a Third Term—he wants to ingratiate himself with Trump supporters—nothing more. In 2028, Trump will be 82 (remembering worrying about Biden and his age). In a few years, this Third Term nonsense will be forgotten and go nowhere. Holding protests against Musk makes no sense. Those businesses that will lose income because Musk is shutting down government leases have a voice—they need to know how to use their voice. Listening to Republicans plead with Trump to release money for their states indicates that they need a fire lit underneath them. There has to be an understanding that Republicans in Congress will pay the price. Pleading and having no interest in seriously questioning or challenging how Musk and Trump (I guess he’s the second banana in some ways) do things such as impounding money Congress approved to spend indicates Republicans are doing nothing. The fear of losing their jobs will matter to them.

Hoping that lawsuits lead somewhere if you are affected by what is happening, takes time. Organizing and letting Republicans in Congress know who will pay at the polls might be heard if done well.

Forget all that nonsense about Trump having a mandate. Did Republicans ever let that get in their way when they opposed anything Barack Obama did as President or Joe Biden? If you are affected by what is happening, do not sit on the sidelines.

Also, do not listen to political talk—the type where Republicans tell you, “We hear you.” No, they don’t. They can take action, but they have not. This is it if you want to know how to use your vote.

A good place to start is organizing email writing campaigns. I suggest 10, 15, and 20 people in the same Congressional district contact their members in Congress—and be persistent, do not let up. Multiple emails can get attention. Add more people to your email campaign. If your Congressional representative is Republican, so much the better. Let them know who will be affected in the 2026 Congressional elections. If there is a Senate race in your state, and a Republican is up for re-election (or there is an open seat, as there will be in Kentucky), let them know. If you get a response such as “I hear you” or Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain,” you know they will do nothing. Make sure you match your address to your Congressional district. Make sure you are registered to vote. Some of what I said may sound basic, but it is not.

Most people have no clue how they can be heard and what impact they can have. Politics, done well, is about organizing. Organize locally, then connect with groups around the country.

(I did not address recent court actions, particularly a US District judge declaring, “The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency." This is some action against what Musk is doing on behalf of Trump, but precisely what it means is unclear. Are people who have been fired supposed to get their jobs back? Will firings continue but be done differently? Where there is a will, there is a way, and Trump wants to fire as many people as he can.)

(*) The Government Accounting Office changed its name in 2004 to the Government Accountability Office.

NOTES

Aatish Bhatia, Josh Katz, Margot Sanger-Katz, and Ethan Singer, “DOGE Claimed It Saved $8 Billion in One Contract. It Was Actually $8 Million,” New York Times (February 18, 2025): https:// www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-musk-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Paul Brandus, “Opinion: Can you trust Elon Musk and his ‘DOGE’ claims about government fraud?” MarketWatch (February 21, 2025): https://www.marketwatch.com/story/can-you-trust-elon-musk-and-his-doge-claims-about-government-fraud-a71d44ed

Alaina Demopoulos, “‘We’re being treated as grifters or terrorists’: US federal workers on the fear and chaos of their firings,” The Guardian (February 25, 2025): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/25/federal-workers-mass-firings-reaction?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Giulia Carbonaro, “Trump Cuts Leases on 2.3 Million Square Feet of Federal Property: Full List,” Newsweek (February 19, 2025): https://www.newsweek.com/trump-cuts-leases-million-square-feet-federal-property-full-list-2033023

Kit Eaton, “Small businesses and Contractors Also Get Hit by Trump’s Federal Funding Cuts,” Inc. (February 7, 2025): https://www.inc.com/kit-eaton/small-businesses-and-contractors-also-get-hit-by-trumps-federal-funding-cuts/91145174

Chris Edwards, “Cutting Federal Spending,” Downsizing the Federal Government (December 1, 2022): https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/cutting-federal-spending

Department of Government Efficiency, An Official Website of the United States Government: https:// doge.gov/savings

“Estimating Regulatory Savings,” Senate RPC (November 14, 2019): https:// www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/estimating-regulatory-savings

Thomas Friestad, Feds will shed large KC-area offices on both sides of the state line. Here’s where,” Kansas City Business Journal (February 24, 2025): https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2025/02/24/gsa-office-reduction-workforce-doge-layoffs.html

“Kansas City GSA Giving Up Buildings Amid DOGE Cuts,” Tony’s Kansas City (February 24, 2025): https://www.tonyskansascity.com/2025/02/kansas-city-gsa-giving-up-buildings.html

Christopher Klein, “How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending,” History (November 21, 2024): https://www.history.com/news/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-government-efficiency

Justin Lahart, “What Do Mass Federal Layoffs Mean for the Labor Market?” Wall Street Journal (February 22, 2025): https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/what-do-mass-federal-layoffs-mean-for-the-labor-market/ar-AA1zBIcP?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=a6b98c0d43d64e8dd218656c74b2363b&ei=30

Joe Lancaster, “Federal Agencies Maintain Offices That Sit Mostly Empty,” Reason (October 27, 2023): https://reason.com/2023/10/27/federal-agencies-maintain-offices-that-sit-mostly-empty/

Terry Lane, “Diving into the Dots: What the Fed’s Interest Rate Projections Mean,” Investopedia (December 18, 2024): https://www.investopedia.com/federal-reserve-dot-plot-economic-projections-8763843

Sean Ludwig, “How to Renegotiate Your Commercial Lease,” CO (November 2, 2020): https://www.uschamber.com/co/start/strategy/renegotiate-commercial-lease-guide

Michael McCarthy, Ferdinand Gallo, Alexander Hastings, W. Barron Avery, Nicola Sullivan, “US Administration Terminates Office Leases Through General Services Administration,” Morgan Lewis (FEBRUARY 14, 2025): HTTPS://WWW.MORGANLEWIS.COM/PUBS/2025/02/US-ADMINISTRATION-TERMINATES-FEDERAL-OFFICE-LEASES-THROUGH-GENERAL-SERVICES-ADMINISTRATION

Darla Mercado, “These 401(k) funds took a beating in 2008-and it could happen again,” CNBC (September 14, 2018): https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/13/these-retirement-funds-took-a-beating-in-2008-it-could-happen-again.html?msockid=01e3558be8e767be2788462ce9e666b8

Mark Niquette and Augusta Saraiva, “Here Are Early Signs of Impact From Trump’s Cuts to Federal Workforce,” Bloomberg (February 19, 2025): https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/here-are-early-signs-of-impact-from-trump-s-cuts-to-federal-workforce/ar-AA1zomWU?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=664026d8a3684415833541b9634ab376&ei=13

Tip O’Neill with Gary Hymel, All Politics is Local: and Other Rules of the Game (New York, Times Books, 1993)

Tejvan Pettinger, “Impact of cutting government spending,” Economics. Help (June 5, 2019): https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2070/economics/cutting-government-spending/. This article addresses the United Kingdom but gives a brief and simple to understand way to look at the impact of government spending cuts.

Wolf Richter, “DOGE Seeks to Shed Vast Amounts of Government Office Space. Here’s How Much the Government Leases, and Where, and What Leases it Can Shed During Trump’s Term,” Pecos (January 26, 2025): https://pecosoperating.com/doge-seeks-to-shed-vast-amounts-of-government-office-space-heres-how-much-the-government-leases-and-where-and-what-leases-it-can-shed-during-trumps-term/

Leopold Ried, Mikaella Polyviou, and Robert Wiedmer, “The Case for Federal Programs That Help Small and Diverse Suppliers,” Harvard Business Review (February 4, 2025): https://hbr.org/2025/02/the-case-for-federal-programs-that-help-small-and-diverse-suppliers

Dan Ruetenik, “DOGE claims credit for $4 million sale of school building auctioned under Biden,” CBS News (February 21, 2025): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doge-claims-credit-for-selling-building-auctioned-under-biden-administration/?intcid=CNR-02-0623&ftag=CNM-00-10aab4i&_amp=1*czi6zv*s_vid*VGQ0N2FkdXgxbnJXY3doUklJejZ2X3lOa1IwaG5EYldHU09xckdFX0tyVU1GVElhazl5aEd5QWoyNlRuNnFVYw..#

Shania Shelton, Tami Luhby, Josh Campbell, Eva McKend, and Evan Perez, “Federal employees told to justify jobs in email or Musk says they face dismissal,” CNN (February 23, 2025): https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/22/politics/elon-musk-employees-emails

Heather Stewart, “Trump policies make US ‘scary place to invest’ and risk stagflation, says Stiglitz,” The Guardian (February 17, 2025): https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/17/joseph-stiglitz-economist-donald-trump-policies-tariffs-stagflation-risk-us-investment?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Thomas Taylor, “DOGE Looks to Cut GSA-Leased Office Space: Quantifying the Impact on Key MSAs,” Trepp (January 24, 2025): https://www.trepp.com/trepptalk/doge-looks-to-cut-gsa-leased-office-space-quantifying-impact-on-key-msas

Jake Traylor and Dasha Burns, “What 130-day cap? Musk is ‘here to stay’ in the Trump admin, adviser says,” Politico (February 28, 2025): https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/elon-musk-doge-work-limit-023375