Elon Musk’s Controversial Government Impact: Cuts, Chaos, and Human Cost

A post by Elon Musk on his social media platform X seems to encapsulate his government legacy: “We spent the weekend putting USAID through the wood chipper,” he wrote on February 3. While some might have expected celebrations, Musk instead highlighted destructive actions.

Musk’s ambitious plan to save the government one trillion dollars by cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse” has largely fallen short. While the Department of Government Efficiency claims savings of $175 billion, experts estimate the true figure is much lower. Additionally, according to the Association for Public Service, the disruptions caused by Musk’s management—including layoffs, rehirings, administrative leave, and lost productivity—could cost the government over $135 billion this fiscal year alone, even before legal costs. This suggests that Musk’s aggressive stance against bureaucracy may have yielded little to no actual savings.

Now, Musk’s involvement in Washington is coming to a close after the billionaire expressed frustration, describing efforts to improve government operations as an uphill battle.

However, Musk and his team did succeed in one area: severely dismantling the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Although a small operation remains within the State Department, the government reports that over 80 percent of USAID grants have been cut. Brooke Nichols, an associate professor of global health at Boston University, estimates that these reductions have already caused approximately 300,000 deaths—mostly children—and likely will result in many more by the end of the year. This grim toll marks the tangible human impact of Musk’s political engagement.

White House officials deny that the USAID cuts have led to fatalities. During a recent House of Representatives hearing, Democrats challenged Secretary of State Marco Rubio with reports documenting suffering and deaths linked to the aid withdrawal. Rubio maintained that no such deaths have occurred, though eyewitnesses on the ground have contested his statements, suggesting either misinformation or falsehoods.