Fixing the deficit is the opposite of looting, actually.

There is no solid evidence of a path to fixing the deficit at the moment.

There is no evidence of this happening, nor of a serviceable plan to do so.

All recovered expenses, to date, add up to a laughably small amount, and are one-time cutbacks. The strategy shows signs of costing the government in unexpected ways as well.

Most governments of developed nations operate in more sensible ways with clearer plans than this. I won't claim they are looting, but it's absurd to suggest they are fixing the deficit at the moment. The economy appears to be getting worse, not better.

Let me guess: the deficit will be fixed without taking the axe to any contracts to Musk-affiliated companies like SpaceX.

> Fixing the deficit is the opposite of looting, actually.

What evidence is there that the current moves will lead to "fixing the deficit?"

Illegally redistributing of appropriated spending could be easily understood as looting in most context. Not sure how this would be excluded.

> Fixing the deficit is the opposite of looting, actually.

I think this has two errors.

First, I don't agree that he's fixing the deficit. I think that's an assumption not in evidence. We'll see in a few years time, though. I'd be willing to bet in 4 years the deficit is > 0, and likely larger than it is today.

But let's assume arguendo that he is fixing the deficit. It's still possible to loot the treasury while fixing the deficit, which shows that they aren't actually the opposite.

Consider this example with completely made up numbers:

Before

- Revenue: $1T

- Defense Spending: $500B

- Benefits Spending: $1T

- Public Services Spending: $499.9B

- Government Contracts with Musk's Companies: $100M

The before scenario has $1T in revenue, and $2T in spending, for a deficit of $1T. Now, let's allow hypothetical Musk to have free-reign to "fix the deficit"

After

- Revenue: $800B

- Defense Spending: $300B

- Benefits Spending: $300B

- Public Services Spending: $100B

- Government Contracts with Musk's Companies: $100B

In this scenario the deficit has been reduced to $0, while Musk has enriched himself and his companies with $99.9B in government funds. This would be an extreme example of Musk looting the treasury, while still completely resolving the deficit.

How is he "looting" government funds ?

The (unelected) richest person in the world, with a sprawling business empire that has many interactions with the federal government, has been given free-reign with no oversight to fire any federal workers that he wants and has usurped Congress' power of the purse by stopping Congressionally appropriated spending.

This creates numerous conflicts of interests and opportunities for self-dealing.

Consider a NASA employee that is awarding government contracts. They know all of the above. They have three bids in front of them. One from Boeing (lol), one from SpaceX, and one from Axiom Space. They NASA employee thinks the bid from Axiom Space is the best value and fits the requirements the best. But will they select them, or will they select SpaceX, knowing that they could be fired tomorrow by Musk's whim?

Repeat this scenario across every interaction any of Musk's companies have with the federal government.

This isn't a novel scenario. Putin's Russia is a great example of what happens when oligarchs are granted significant autonomy over organs of the government. It is a system designed to facilitate corruption.

You could assuage my concerns, though, by describing the ways that there is effective oversight over Musk, or by describing the anti-corruption anti-self-dealing measures that have been imposed on Musk. The Press Secretary gave a statement on this saying: "As for concerns regarding conflicts of interest between Elon Musk and DOGE, President Trump has stated he will not allow conflicts, and Elon himself has committed to recusing himself from potential conflicts." That...does not resolve my concerns.