How Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Are Overlooking the Obvious Path to Cut Waste

In his role as head of the recently established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Elon Musk has positioned himself as America’s chief efficiency expert, tasked with identifying and eliminating government waste. Yet for all the attention on streamlining bureaucracy and reducing operational costs, Musk’s DOGE initiative has conspicuously overlooked the largest sources of government waste hiding in plain sight: massive subsidies to the fossil fuel and pharmaceutical industries. This oversight represents a critical blind spot in what could otherwise be a transformative approach to government spending reform.

The Contradiction in DOGE’s Efficiency Mission

Musk’s appointment to lead DOGE came with bold promises to eliminate redundant programs, reduce bureaucratic bloat, and identify unnecessary spending across government agencies. The tech billionaire’s reputation for disruption and operational efficiency in the private sector made him an intriguing choice to tackle government waste. However, DOGE’s current approach appears focused on trimming around the edges rather than addressing the most substantial sources of taxpayer waste.

This selective approach to government efficiency raises important questions about the true objectives of the department. Is DOGE genuinely committed to eliminating all forms of government waste, or only certain types that align with particular ideological or business interests?

The Staggering Scale of Oil Subsidies

The fossil fuel industry receives extraordinary financial support from American taxpayers, creating market distortions that directly contradict the efficiency principles DOGE claims to champion. According to the International Monetary Fund, global fossil fuel subsidies reached an astonishing $7 trillion in 2023. Within the United States alone, direct federal subsidies to oil companies amount to tens of billions annually, despite these corporations reporting record-breaking profits.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has been particularly vocal about this issue, stating bluntly:

“We are subsidizing the danger.”

This danger extends beyond environmental concerns to include fundamental market inefficiencies that undermine the competitive marketplace that Musk has often championed in his business ventures.

Senator Bernie Sanders has repeatedly highlighted these wasteful subsidies, noting in a recent Senate hearing:

“It is absolutely absurd that we continue to hand billions of taxpayer dollars to an industry making record profits while polluting our planet. If we want to talk about government efficiency and cutting wasteful spending, we should start right here.”

What makes this oversight particularly puzzling is Musk’s parallel role as CEO of Tesla, an electric vehicle manufacturer whose mission centers on accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable energy. The subsidies DOGE ignores directly impede Tesla’s stated mission by artificially reducing the cost of fossil fuels, making electric vehicles seem comparatively more expensive than they would be in an undistorted market.

DOGE’s Narrow Focus on Operational Efficiency

Rather than addressing these massive subsidies, DOGE has focused primarily on operational inefficiencies within government agencies. While streamlining operations and eliminating redundancies are worthwhile goals, they pale in comparison to the potential savings from addressing fossil fuel subsidies. This narrow focus suggests that DOGE may be more concerned with the appearance of efficiency than with tackling the most significant sources of waste.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has criticized this limited approach, stating:

“When we talk about government waste, why do we always focus on programs that help ordinary Americans while ignoring the billions we hand to profitable corporations? Real efficiency would mean addressing all forms of wasteful spending, especially corporate subsidies.”

True government efficiency would require a comprehensive approach that examines all forms of government spending, including tax expenditures and subsidies that flow to profitable industries. By focusing exclusively on operational costs and bureaucratic structures, DOGE misses the opportunity to create truly transformative reform.

The Double Payment Problem in Pharmaceuticals

The pharmaceutical subsidy model presents another example of systemic waste that DOGE has failed to address. U.S. taxpayers fund nearly 60% of drug development costs yet still face the highest prescription drug prices in the developed world. A study by Lever News found that Americans paid $11 billion to develop drugs that many could not subsequently afford.

Bernie Sanders has been particularly outspoken on this issue:

“The American people are paying twice for the same medications—first through their tax dollars that fund the research, and then again at the pharmacy counter with the highest prices in the world. If that’s not government waste, I don’t know what is.”

This “pay twice” model represents exactly the kind of inefficient system that a Department of Government Efficiency should be highlighting. The COVID-19 vaccine development provides a stark example, with companies like Pfizer and Moderna generating nearly $90 billion in profits from vaccines developed with substantial taxpayer funding.

Sanders elaborated on this point during a Senate Budget Committee hearing:

“Moderna received billions in taxpayer money to develop their COVID vaccine. The technology came from NIH—another taxpayer investment. And what did the American people get in return? Some of the highest vaccine prices in the world and executives becoming billionaires. This is not just inefficient; it’s immoral.”

For all of Musk’s talk about efficiency and bureaucratic waste, DOGE has remained silent on this profound market failure that costs taxpayers billions while delivering windfall profits to private corporations.

The Contradiction in Musk’s Dual Roles

Musk’s silence on fossil fuel subsidies while leading DOGE is particularly contradictory given his position at Tesla. This creates an appearance of conflict that undermines the credibility of DOGE’s efficiency mission. Is the department truly focused on maximizing taxpayer value, or is it selectively targeting certain types of spending while preserving subsidies that align with particular business or ideological interests?

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich highlighted this contradiction:

“You can’t claim to be serious about government efficiency while ignoring the biggest giveaways in the federal budget. These fossil fuel subsidies not only waste taxpayer money but actively work against the clean energy transition that Musk himself champions at Tesla. It’s an obvious contradiction.”

This selective approach to government intervention in markets—ignoring massive subsidies to certain industries while scrutinizing spending in others—suggests that DOGE’s commitment to efficiency may be more political than principled.

DOGE’s Limited Vision of Government Reform

Despite its ambitious name, the Department of Government Efficiency’s vision of reform remains surprisingly limited. While promising to eliminate bureaucratic waste, it has failed to address the very real and serious market distortions created by government subsidies to entrenched industries.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has questioned this limited approach:

“If we’re serious about government efficiency, we need to follow the money. And the money is flowing by the billions to highly profitable industries that don’t need it. Any efficiency initiative that ignores these subsidies isn’t really about efficiency at all.”

True government efficiency would require addressing these fundamental distortions rather than simply streamlining existing operations. By focusing narrowly on operational costs without addressing these larger issues, DOGE limits its potential impact on meaningful government reform.

The Economic Argument Against Subsidies

Beyond environmental concerns, there is a compelling economic argument against these subsidies that should resonate with DOGE’s efficiency mandate. Studies suggest that cutting fossil fuel subsidies could free up taxpayer funds for essential services while creating more efficient energy markets—precisely the kind of win-win scenario that should appeal to efficiency experts.

Economist Joseph Stiglitz has emphasized this point:

“From a purely economic perspective, these subsidies represent a massive market distortion that undermines efficiency. They’re effectively a form of corporate welfare that creates artificial winners and losers rather than allowing true market competition.”

Similarly, reforming pharmaceutical subsidies could lead to more affordable medications without reducing innovation. Research indicates that the current system primarily rewards incremental improvements to existing drugs rather than breakthrough treatments, suggesting that reform could actually enhance rather than hinder medical innovation.