WASHINGTON — Elon Musk, President Donald Trump’s chief advisor, recently appeared at the White House to defend the substantial federal government spending cuts, acknowledging past and future errors.
Alongside President Trump and his young son, Musk witnessed the signing of an executive order furthering federal workforce reductions, with Trump praising Musk’s efforts within the Department of Government Efficiency.
Despite concerns about his extensive, seemingly unchecked influence and lack of transparency, Musk portrayed himself as open and accountable, humorously likening the scrutiny to a “daily proctology exam.”
Despite Musk’s commitment to transparency, the White House dismissed the U.S. Agency for International Development’s inspector general; this followed a warning that the DOGE-led USAID restructuring hindered oversight of $8.2 billion in humanitarian aid.
In his first press engagement since joining the Trump administration, Musk defended DOGE’s actions as pragmatic and reasonable, dismissing concerns of harshness or radicalism.
“The public voted for significant government reform, and that’s what they’ll receive,” he stated. “That’s the essence of democracy.”
Musk, the world’s wealthiest individual and owner of X, asserted maximal transparency, claiming information was available on X and the DOGE website. However, the DOGE website lacks information, and X posts are deficient in detail, including specifics on program cuts and DOGE’s access.
Musk conceded inaccuracies in his statements regarding government programs and spending.
“Some of my statements will be inaccurate and require correction. Nobody’s perfect,” he said, promising swift error corrections.
He also acknowledged potential DOGE errors.
“We’re working rapidly, leading to mistakes, but we’ll rectify them promptly,” Musk explained.
Musk recognized competent individuals within the federal bureaucracy, emphasizing the need for accountability. He referred to the bureaucracy as an unelected fourth branch, wielding more influence than elected officials.
Trump and Musk are encouraging federal employees to resign with financial incentives; however, this plan is temporarily stalled pending judicial review. This deferred resignation program, essentially a buyout, provides continued pay until September 30th. Officials claim over 65,000 workers accepted the offer.
A White House fact sheet accompanying Trump’s executive order indicated that agencies will plan significant workforce reductions, potentially eliminating or merging units or entire agencies with non-essential functions.
It also mandated a hiring cap of one employee for every four departing employees, with exceptions for immigration, law enforcement, and public safety.
A rally supporting federal workers took place near the U.S. Capitol.
Janet Connelly, a Department of Energy graphic designer, expressed frustration with persistent emails from the Office of Personnel Management promoting the deferred resignation program.
Despite spam filtering attempts, she remains unmoved and plans to retain her position.
“From the beginning, I was distrustful,” she stated.
Connelly views her work as a vital public service.
“It’s too easy to vilify us,” she added.
Others reported widespread fear and uncertainty within the federal workforce.
“They’re concerned about their jobs, families, and the communities they serve,” commented Helen Bottcher, a former EPA employee and current union leader in Seattle.
Bottcher participated in a press conference hosted by Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat.
Murray argued that workers “deserve better than intimidation and forced resignations” by Musk and Trump, adding that “we need these people to stay; otherwise, things will begin to fail.”
An anonymous government lawyer, fearing retaliation, described the situation as terrifying for federal employees.
She mentioned concerns about surveillance and is considering a safer private sector job at her father’s urging. She’s skeptical of the deferred resignation program, noting that acceptance waives legal recourse for unpaid promised compensation.
The whole idea, she said, was absurd.
—Price reported from New York. AP writers Martha Bellisle in Seattle, Rebecca Santana in Washington, and Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.
“`
