Why Elon Musk desires his role as ‘Volunteer IT Consultant’ in DOGE (Picture credit: AP)
Elon Muskthe richest person on the planet, has shared his desire to be a “Volunteer IT Consultant” in the new Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Musk believes this title to be fitting due to the dire state of the US government computers and software.
Sharing his concerns on Monday, Musk wrote a post on social media platform X to address the pressing issues within the federal government’s IT infrastructure, calling for an overhaul to improve efficiency and accountability.
In his post, Musk pointed out that federal systems are so outdated that they often fail to verify whether payments are free from fraud, waste, or abuse. He further stated, “That’s why the government can’t pass basic audits. They often literally don’t know where your tax dollars went. It’s insane.”
The Tesla CEO also referenced a 2019 government watchdog report revealing that several federal IT systems are in critical condition, costing the government around $337 million to maintain annually.
These outdated systems, the report notes, pose security risks due to known vulnerabilities.
Musk aims to highlight the inefficiency of the current system, which he believes undermines government operations and hinders progress in addressing national deficits. Alongside him in this mission is billionaire Vivek Ramaswamywho briefly ran for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
The duo is co-leading the DOGE, a body dedicated to finding ways to improve the management of taxpayers’ money by reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs.
While the exact authority of DOGE remains uncertain, Musk and Ramaswamy have already begun to focus on areas where they believe immediate improvements can be made. One of their priorities includes addressing inefficiencies in entitlement programs.
As per the Washington Times, Rep Marjorie Taylor Greenewho heads a DOGE subcommittee in the House, has mentioned that Musk and Ramaswamy may compile “naughty” and “nice” lists based on lawmakers’ spending records, further scrutinising government expenditures.
