Reflecting on his past decisions, Elon Musk revealed that if given the opportunity to relive certain moments of his career, he would choose not to participate in the DOGE initiative again. During his appearance on “The Katie Miller Podcast,” the Tesla and SpaceX chief executive offered a candid assessment of his involvement, describing the experience as one that felt almost dreamlike and difficult to process at the time. Musk explained that while the goal of DOGE — formally known as the Department of Government Efficiency — was to streamline federal operations and reduce unnecessary expenditures, its overall impact fell short of his aspirations. The office, established at the outset of President Donald Trump’s second term, was designed to uncover inefficiencies and eliminate wasteful spending within the vast machinery of the U.S. government. Yet Musk admitted that its achievements were only partially successful and far from transformative.
He recalled his disbelief during those months in Washington, remarking that the entire endeavor seemed surreal, as if he were moving through an experience disconnected from his usual reality of engineering challenges and private-sector innovation. Speaking with Katie Miller — whose husband, Stephen Miller, then held the position of deputy chief of staff at the White House — Musk reflected that his time might have been better devoted to advancing his businesses, which were undergoing intense phases of technological development and global expansion.
The very name of the office, DOGE, Musk noted with a touch of irony, was crowdsourced from the internet, carrying the informal and slightly satirical tone that often follows his ventures. Despite the humorous origin of the acronym, the mission behind it was serious: to attempt to curtail government overspending and promote fiscal responsibility. Nevertheless, Musk conceded that his specific contributions did not yield the sweeping reforms he had once envisioned. His team made measurable progress in identifying “zombie payments” — automatic disbursements of public funds that persisted year after year without valid justification — and by instituting a rule requiring payment codes and explanations, they succeeded in halting some of these transactions. Still, Musk was quick to clarify that such victories, while tangible, represented only a modest fraction of the broader inefficiencies that plague federal budgets, which can easily involve hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
At one point, Musk’s preliminary projections had suggested that DOGE might eventually save as much as two trillion dollars, a figure that captured headlines and energized supporters of fiscal reform. Yet over time, as he observed the institutional constraints and bureaucratic inertia inherent to the federal system, he revised his predictions downward. Before stepping back from his post in April, his estimate had settled around an anticipated $150 billion in spending reductions for the 2026 fiscal year. Even this more modest target, however, proved difficult to validate before the office was quietly dissolved several months later. Business Insider reported that by August, Politico’s independent analysis confirmed roughly $1.4 billion in verified contract cancellations, along with a measurable decrease in federal outlays — an achievement that, while not insignificant, fell far short of the grand ambitions that had originally defined DOGE’s creation.
When Miller asked Musk if he would accept the same government role again, should time offer him another chance, he paused before answering. After a brief sigh, he admitted that he would decline. In hindsight, he explained, the project had taken valuable energy and time that might have been better invested in the growth of his own enterprises — from advancing electric vehicles at Tesla to refining reusable rocket technologies at SpaceX. He remarked half-jokingly that perhaps if he had concentrated entirely on his companies during that period, the metaphorical “burning of cars” — a reference to the production setbacks and controversies Tesla faced — might have been avoided.
Musk’s involvement with the Trump administration provoked a powerful public response. He faced sustained criticism, vigorous protests, and incidents of vandalism directed at Tesla facilities, which he interpreted as visceral reactions to his attempt to address what he viewed as political inefficiency and corruption. By June, his relationship with President Trump had deteriorated sharply following Musk’s outspoken criticism of the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” a legislative effort he believed contradicted principles of responsible governance. The disagreement escalated into a public dispute that persisted for months, attracting widespread media attention. Yet, according to later reporting by Business Insider, tensions appeared to mellow by November: Musk and Trump had mended their professional rapport to some extent, with the entrepreneur even receiving an invitation to a White House dinner in honor of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
In sum, Musk’s experience with the Department of Government Efficiency stands as a brief yet revealing chapter in his multifaceted career — one that exposed the complexities of attempting reform within entrenched political systems. Although he characterized DOGE as “a little bit” successful in cutting unnecessary costs, his ultimate conclusion was that the initiative did not justify the diversion from his true strengths in innovation, engineering, and entrepreneurship. The reflection offers a telling insight into Musk’s evolving philosophy: even ambitious experiments can teach valuable lessons, but not every venture warrants repetition.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-doge-only-somewhat-successful-wouldnt-participate-again-2025-12
