Editor’s Note: This is the debut edition of Civil Discourse, a new column where Isabella Pieretti and Conor Richards share their perspectives on a political story or event covered by The Heights. This first column is a response to “BC History Professor Denounces Musk’s Actions as “a Coup” to Millions of Social Media Followers.”
Isabella:
Boston College History Professor Heather Cox Richardson equated Elon Musk’s supervision of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to a “coup,” arguing the agency’s unprecedented access to key government systems constituted a breach of national security.
When I think of the word “coup,” I understand it as a movement in which a collective entity—historically the military—seizes power from the acting government. By this definition, Musk’s position at the helm of DOGE, appointed by President Trump, would not qualify as a coup. But Merriam-Webster defines a coup, derivative of the French coup d’etat, as “a sudden, decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.” This broader definition complicates our understanding and sheds light on Richardson’s deliberate and provocative use of the word.
Richardson’s use of the word “coup” could certainly be seen as overly inflammatory or fear-mongering, but there is a reason behind her choice. Musk, an individual with private interests, now has gained access to highly classified information. In November 2024, Trump publicly announced that Musk would lead the new department, but since then he has been referred to as a “non career special government employee” and senior advisor to the president, essentially avoiding claiming any concrete title. This lack of clarity translates directly to the confusing nature of DOGE’s demands of federal employees.
Last month, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) instructed federal workers to list the tasks they had performed the previous week. As workers tried to decide whether they should comply—fearing termination if they didn’t—several major agencies including the FBI, Pentagon, and State Department, directed them not to comply. The confusion deepened when OPM stated that responding was not mandatory, while Musk warned, “Failure to respond a second time will result in termination.”
Trump, for his part, speculated that perhaps the people who failed to respond to the email simply do not exist. While the American public remains as confused as federal employees, the latter now face heightened anxiety over their job security.
Intensifying the concerns around DOGE is Musk’s move to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which oversees foreign aid spending, along with his newly acquired access to the Treasury’s federal payment system. This access allows him to view sensitive financial data, including taxpayers’ personal information. These moves have sparked a flood of new headlines every day and raised concerns that no one is holding the richest man in the world accountable for his actions. These actions, which adhere to a business playbook, might not be the right strategy for the U.S. government.
Interestingly enough, Merriam-Webster lists a second definition of “coup”: “a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act.” President Trump clearly envisions DOGE as this kind of coup, and Musk—who employed similar tactics at X (formerly Twitter)—is his spearhead.
The objectives behind the radical restructuring of government agencies are cutting wasteful spending, limiting bureaucracy, and reducing the size of federal agencies to make a dent in Washington’s 36.2 trillion debt, a figure that reached an all-time high after rising every year for the past decade. At first glance, these are important steps that could curb government spending and reverse the current trend, where the nation’s outlays are outpacing tax revenue.
These ideals, however, are largely undermined by Musk’s rapid, reckless work at DOGE and widespread confusion surrounding his role within the new administration.
America is undoubtedly witnessing a coup. Only time will tell which kind.
Conor:
A “coup”? Really? Excuse me, please, while I roll my eyes for the fourth time today.
After ten years of Trump, I’m worn out by the outrage machine. I’m particularly tired of the wildly irresponsible claims about anything the Trump team touches—especially when the courts are doing their job, blocking executive actions when necessary. The constant cries of “wolf” have made us deaf to the real threat, leaving us vulnerable when the wolf actually arrives.
To be clear, I take issue with Professor Richardson’s rhetoric, not with her vigilance. Vigilance is the bulwark of any democracy. But it must be done soberly, otherwise people will not trust you. This is my attempt at sober reflection.
To begin, as Elon likes to boast, let’s start with “first principles.” The missions of DOGE are worthy ones—cutting federal spending and returning regulatory power to Congress. Specifically, I want to focus on the spending cuts. The deficit grows annually, projected to reach an astronomical $115 trillion over the next three decades. By 2053, the debt will likely amount to $1 million per household. Regardless of waste, federal spending must be reduced.
This, however, is where DOGE loses my support. Ignore, for a moment, the glaring inaccuracies of their claims. Set aside the fact that most of their actions are likely illegal and will result in no net savings. Let’s focus instead on first principles.
The largest contributors to the ballooning deficit are Social Security and Medicare, both mandatory spending programs. These two programs are also the primary drivers of the projected $124 trillion deficit over the next three decades. All other spending—particularly agency costs—dwarfs in comparison to these programs.
If DOGE’s goal is to meaningfully cut spending, then Social Security and Medicare must be the first targets. To do otherwise would be a waste of time. Yet that’s exactly what DOGE appears to be doing—aggressively going after the smallest fish in the pond.
Before they began obscuring their data, DOGE’s “suggested savings” amounted to just 0.1 percent of federal spending in FY 2024—0.1 percent! If that seems laughable, it’s because it is. This is certainly not a serious effort, nor will it ever be until it takes on Social Security or Medicare beyond just rooting out small levels of fraud. Alas, President Trump’s populist tendencies and campaign promises suggest this will never happen.
Meanwhile, the media cannot focus on anything else. Democrats gnash their teeth and wail as their beloved government agencies lose funding. Meanwhile, Trump will parade Elon around as a savior. Don’t believe the hype.
What we must do, however, is ask: If DOGE is not trying to meaningfully cut spending, then what exactly is it doing? If DOGE is not doing anything, perhaps it is merely noise—a distraction from what Team Trump truly wants to accomplish.
Leave a Reply