Elon Musk and Donald Trump are leading the country to bankruptcy: “Astounding” level of “fraud, waste and abuse”
Florida – Earlier this week in Florida, Trump was caught in a lie, prompting the media to question who is truly in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency. Elon Musk has emerged as the most influential figure in the Trump administration, following his strong support for the now-president in the months leading up to the November election. Musk remains at the center of public attention not only because of his close relationship with Trump but also due to DOGE’s aggressive measures under his leadership. The department’s aggressive approach to cutting federal expenses—primarily through mass layoffs of federal workers—has sparked widespread concern.
Experts are raising concerns over the legality and financial ramifications of the Trump administration’s recent wave of terminations among federal employees; this could leave the government with a potentially “monumental” bill. Former government officials and labor attorneys argue that although claims of “poor performance” justify the firings, they lack evidence and could cause major legal and financial consequences.
Jacob Malcom, a former senior official at the US Department of the Interior, resigned this week in protest against the dismissals. Speaking to the Guardian, Malcom criticized the administration’s rationale.
“This is being done under the guise of ‘poor performance’ or ‘skills not aligned with needs’ but neither are true,” he told the Guardian. “First, no evidence was provided that would suggest that poor performance; in fact, I know some of the individuals that were down my chain of supervision and know they were among the best performers.
Reportedly under Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency,” the dismissals have been part of a larger effort aiming at improving federal efficiency by lowering the workforce. But prominent labor attorney Suzanne Summerlin called the firings full of “fraud, waste, and abuse.” Summerlin projects that the government’s financial load—including back pay, interest, benefits, and attorney fees for hundreds of thousands of impacted former employees—may be heavily taxed by a lack of adherence to appropriate legal procedures.
The White House has justified the layoffs as required to cut unnecessary expenditure and improve agency performance. White House spokesman Anna Kelly clarified that President Trump and his team are dedicated to meet the demand of the American people for a more effective government by eliminating staff members who are not crucial for the functioning of the government.
But the controversy has only gotten more heated when a federal judge decided to dismiss a lawsuit filed by several unions trying to stop the firings. Saying the court lacked jurisdiction, the judge advised the unions to bring their complaints before the federal labor board.
From recent hires to long-term federal workers almost at the end of their probationary terms, the firings have impacted a broad spectrum of employees. Many of those let go had apparently gotten good performance evaluations and were shocked by the notices.
Critics claim that these mass firings undermine not only the livelihoods of thousands but also important government operations. Senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, Kia Hamadanchy, expressed concerns regarding the possible reasons and legality of the layoffs.
“We are concerned that the firings have occurred for partisan political reasons and that they do not follow legal reduction in force procedures,” said Kia. “These mass layoffs undermine essential government functions and threaten a key check on executive power.”
Meanwhile, calls for Congressional intervention are growing louder. Stakeholders are pushing legislators to look into the actions of the government, thus influencing future handling of federal workforce cuts. At the same time, the impacted former workers and their supporters are preparing for an extended legal fight in search of a solution that might lessen the overall effects of these conflicting dismissals.
