[By GuanchaNet columnist Jiang Yuzhou]
After Trump initiated another round of tariff wars on April 2nd, the relationship between Trump and Musk became very delicate:
Firstly, Tesla's stock price fell sharply in response to the tariff policy. Although Musk did not directly comment on the policy, on April 6th, he retweeted a comment on X (Twitter), implying "trade wars ultimately harm consumers," which was interpreted as an implicit criticism of Trump's tariff policies.
On April 7th, according to The Washington Post, Musk had tried to persuade Trump to revoke reciprocal tariffs but was rejected. This was followed by his public spat with Navarro, with each side refusing to back down. One mocked the other for having a doctorate but lacking wisdom, while the other said "you're just a car salesman" and questioned his qualifications to comment on national policies.
Until April 16th, Axios, a U.S. media outlet, brought up again the controversial news from last month about Musk receiving a briefing on China-related military operations at the Pentagon. This had previously been denied by Trump. According to Axios's latest revelations, it was not Musk who decided to cancel the "China-related military briefing" but rather Trump personally ordered the staff to cancel it, even using profanity.
Evidently, Trump is wary of Musk's relationship with China.
Rumors of Musk's resignation have been circulating since before the trade war began. This has made people more curious: Is the honeymoon period between Trump and Musk really coming to an end due to the trade war? What will be the future of Trump and Musk? And what can we see about the current state of U.S. political-business relations?
I. The "Resignation" Mystery: A Far-Sighted Prediction
Ever since Musk participated in an interview on Fox News on March 27th, reports about his planned resignation in late May have begun to spread, reaching a peak in the first few days of April. Then, due to Musk's social media post dismissing it as "fake news," it seemed like a fabrication.
Since Musk became close to Trump, speculation about their relationship has been rampant. Image source: foreign media.
Before analyzing this further, we need to clarify a background detail: Musk is not a full-time official but a "special government employee" (SGE). According to Section 202(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code, this identity limits work for the U.S. government to no more than 130 days within any year (i.e., 365 consecutive days).
Starting from Trump's inauguration in January, exactly 130 days would fall on the end of May.
Based on this background, the host of Fox News asked Musk, "Will your term exceed this time?"
Musk replied, "Within that timeframe," he would complete most of his work, i.e., reducing the fiscal deficit by $1 trillion.
When the host confirmed whether this work was locked within the 130-day timeframe, Musk clearly answered "YES."
Although the issue of his term was not further discussed in subsequent interviews, sensitive media began tracking the matter and directly asked Trump on March 31st if he hoped Musk could stay longer than 130 days in the government.
Compared to his previous firm responses, Trump's reply this time was quite intriguing: "At some point, he'll return to the company"; "As long as I can keep him, I will keep him"; "The 'Department of Government Efficiency' will end at some point, and ministers will eventually finish their work."
Thus, Musk hinted at "leaving on time," and Trump clarified "successor ready."
According to common sense, if he could still stay, these two choleric individuals should have made more definitive refutations rather than such replies, which explains why the rumors of Musk's resignation quickly erupted.
In fact, by reviewing their past statements together, it becomes clear that both sides have gradually reduced the expected duration of Musk's term.
As early as when Trump was elected president last November and proposed the "Department of Government Efficiency," he had already specified that the "Department of Government Efficiency" led by Musk would continue until July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of American Independence Day.
Trump also said: "A smaller, more efficient, and less bureaucratic government will be the perfect gift to America."
Upon officially assuming office, the executive order signed by Trump stipulated that the "Department of Government Efficiency" would last for 18 months, and Musk even made a "DOGE self-termination" countdown clock, solemnly stating: "The last task of the 'Department of Government Efficiency' will be to dismantle itself."
The DOGE countdown clock. Image source: DOGE website.
Not long after, in early February, media began to concern themselves with Musk's term as a "special government employee." The White House repeatedly stated that Musk could exceed the 130-day limit, saying he "would definitely stay," and his work for the "Department of Government Efficiency" "would continue until completed" and "had no end in sight."
In the original narrative, Musk was set to go hand-in-hand with DOGE, meaning there was "no known end date on Musk’s tenure." Foreign media report screenshot.
The change occurred in mid-March when, during an interview with Fox, Musk suddenly announced that he would only stay in the "Department of Government Efficiency" for a year, and he clearly stated that this job made running his business very difficult.
At this time, Tesla cars were being vandalized across the U.S. and Western countries, leading to plummeting sales and stock prices, and even internal discussions about whether Musk should step down.
On March 18th, a Tesla car was set on fire in Las Vegas. Video screenshot.
A month later, the scene at the beginning of this chapter unfolded, reducing the working time from a year to 130 days.
Similarly, Musk's "denial" was intriguing.
In terms of timing, he did not immediately deny it but waited three days after Trump's remarks, knowing that Trump, Musk, Vance, Besent, Lutnik... a group with hedge fund experience would understand the importance of timely information response, especially for major news involving "team valuation." Waiting three days was itself a form of attitude.
In terms of form, he did not do so through a public statement or interview but responded to White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt's denial of Musk resigning soon on social media, writing only three English words: Yes, fake news.
This tweet only denied that Musk would "resign soon." So, is "soon" one month or longer?
Moreover, Levitt, while seemingly "denying," suddenly said this: "After completing incredible work, Musk will leave public service as a 'special government employee.'" Vice President Vance made a similar statement, saying that after the 130-day term ends, Musk will remain "an advisor to me and the president," and related work will continue.
This phrase "common advisor" is quite thought-provoking. Recall last December, when Trump and Musk were seen together, media speculated that Vance had been marginalized. Now the tables have turned.
Denying the resignation rumor, the final focus is still on "leaving."
Such subtle implications are worth pondering.
This leaves a clue: Musk's departure will occur after completing the work. Musk also emphasized in the interview that he would cut down one trillion "deficit" within 130 days.
So how is he doing now?
II. Results of the "Hundred Days Reform": A Confusing Account Book That Bullies Americans' Arithmetic Skills
Nowadays, whenever the "Department of Government Efficiency" is mentioned, people tend to associate it with layoffs, budget cuts, and department reductions. To evaluate the results of the "hundred days reform," we first need to clarify what the ultimate goal of this reform is.
In response, when Trump introduced the concept of the "Department of Government Efficiency" at the end of last year, he gave a general goal: "a smaller, more efficient, and less bureaucratic government."
It's not just about touching vested interests.
Therefore, the layoffs and budget cuts are merely the most superficial tasks, serving as specific measures to enhance efficiency. After these efforts make progress, new technologies can be introduced to reshape decision-making and execution processes, straighten out the connections between departments, leverage the integrated function of the government machinery, and achieve a transformation of government functions, thereby realizing Trump's goal of "higher efficiency and less bureaucracy."
Voice within the "Department of Government Efficiency" occasionally floated these visions. For instance, Thomas Schade, a former Tesla engineer, proposed an "AI-first strategy," hoping that government departments could operate like "start-up software companies," automatically executing different tasks while collecting data relevant to the entire federal government, ultimately achieving automation for most work.
For example, Joe Gebbia, an independent director of Tesla and a key aide to Musk at DOGE, believed that Silicon Valley experiences could be introduced into government—"we truly believe that government can have an experience akin to Apple Stores."
However, through the information disclosed over the past three months, Musk's team's statements regarding issues beyond layoffs and cost-cutting have mainly focused on technical setup and data acquisition, with little deep exploration of other topics. Even the limited relevant information disclosed was "piecemeal," as previously described.
Perhaps some friends might think that this can be understood as the work just starting, not yet reaching this level.
But this would make the "departure" mentioned in the previous section seem rushed and suspicious.
Moreover, even the layoffs and cost-cutting contain significant padding.
In terms of layoffs, according to the updated details released earlier in March, it was claimed that 100,000 civil servants had been laid off, including direct dismissals or layoffs (about 10,000 people), buyouts (75,000 people), and reducing probationary federal employees (22,000). The latest data shows that a total of 200,000 people have been cut.
However, the result has caused widespread uproar. This not only includes protests from those who left but also numerous legal and technical reasons leading to "layoffs being overturned," such as professionals returning to aviation, nuclear weapons, and epidemic prevention departments, and multiple state courts requiring reinstatement of dismissed personnel.
Facing this situation, Musk, in a recent interview, showed no sign of "this is how it is," instead uttering a self-exonerating sentence in English and Chinese that could be judged as a grammatical error:
"Basically almost no one has gotten fired," voluntary departures were all due to "buyouts."
With such a stance from the initiator, the prospects for this work are predictable.
Trump also stepped in to lower expectations, stating earlier that the size of the government would likely satisfy them in another two to three months, hinting that large-scale layoffs would soon end.
The cost-cutting is equally a confusing account book, starting with a promise to cut $2 trillion (still the number on the DOGE website), then halved to $1 trillion. Decomposing this into daily cost cuts has fluctuated between $3 billion and $1 billion, and by mid-March, the actual daily average cut was only $616 million.
Recently, Musk claimed that his team would cut costs at a rate of "$4 billion per day, seven days a week," which is clearly calculated based on cutting $1 trillion annually. Therefore, once Musk emphasized the "130-day timeframe," the entire task would supposedly be "completed," leaving a gap of five to six times.
To put it bluntly, these numerical games are bullying the grassroots American public whose arithmetic skills are poor due to "happy education," making it meaningless to argue which indicator is more serious among so many "off-the-cuff" figures.
On the DOGE website, the displayed budget cuts across departments also show severe imbalance. Among the $140 billion in claimed budget cuts, USAID and HHS account for 2/3, far ahead of other departments.
Naturally, their layoffs are also unmatched by others. It is reported that only 294 employees will be retained out of 13,000 employees at USAID, and the Department of Health and Human Services, with 82,000 employees, plans to reduce at least 20,000 positions by the end of March, with half already completed.
In other words, by the end of March, the wave of expenditure reduction triggered by DOGE remains a "blunt instrument," largely achieved by massive layoffs or dismantling entire departments, facing increasing pressure from layoffs and Trump openly backing down, making the completion of the $140 billion project increasingly unsustainable.
As of April 7th, the top five departments with the highest expenditure cuts displayed on the DOGE website. It can be seen how far ahead USAID and HHS are. Image source: author's creation.
There is a very serious problem in the data publicly disclosed on the DOGE website: the total budget and detailed accounts simply don't match. When I wrote the previous article in late March, DOGE claimed to have cut $130 billion in expenditures, but the published charts only updated the daily details up to March 18th, totaling only $35.166 billion.
This article was written in early April, by which time the total cut had increased to $14 billion, but the data added up from the chart up to March 27th was only $9.7229 billion. Furthermore, I tracked dates with large expenditure cuts for comparison and found that the amounts were generally significantly increased. For example, on February 26th, initially reported as cutting $2.02 billion, it was later changed to $4.49 billion; on March 1st, initially reported as cutting $1.554 billion, it was now changed to $3.092 billion...
Since the DOGE website does not disclose its accounting relationships, we cannot trace why there is such a discrepancy between the total and detailed amounts, nor can we verify why the data from previous dates was adjusted. But this precisely proves that DOGE is not an "open-source" department. Combined with the previous revelation that 40% of the cuts came from completed orders, the actual effectiveness of the expenditure cuts is questionable.
Worse still, even at the current pace, none of Musk's boasting versions of the cut plan can be completed!
As of April 7th, the daily expenditure cuts displayed on the DOGE website (left), and a re-drawn chart based on its data (right). Using the same data, the chart differences are enormous. Image source: author's creation.
Moreover, as previously mentioned several times, the expenditure areas. In December, when Musk planned the expenditure cuts, he initially wanted to cut large chunks of funds, and the first to be affected was veterans' benefits. Later, there were numerous expenditures involving defense spending, social security, healthcare... As the protest wave grew, he began promising: basic services would not be cut.
In his later-planned strategies, expenditure cuts focused more on "eliminating fraud, renegotiating contracts, and reducing redundant spending." The firepower was directed toward fictitious expenditures and so-called "diversity" funding. He also proposed a long-term "vision," suggesting that the federal government should raise retirement age, slow down welfare growth rates, adjust the cost of living, and shift to a "unified welfare model" focusing on poverty prevention in the future.
However, long-term goals are beyond his control. Short-term goals depend solely on numbers, and these numbers are the "watered-down" figures mentioned above, already showing inconsistencies and flaws.
Tesla recently had billions of dollars in accounts that were not balanced, raising widespread concerns among investors about the company's internal controls. Compared to the accounts of the "Department of Government Efficiency," these are mere drops in the bucket.
And we can all conclude from his performance that this shift in strategies indicates that Musk was unclear about what he would face, the structure of the government's financial system, and even the structure of U.S. fiscal expenditures before taking office as head of the "Department of Government Efficiency."
Even the surface-level measures have been executed like this, so how much worse off will the more long-term and deeper plans be? Imagine that these reforms require time to nurture, and they cannot be accomplished with just verbal commitments over a hundred days.
In the previous column articles, we reviewed the two largest government reforms in the U.S. over the past few decades. During Reagan's administration, the Grace Commission saved over $100 billion in three years. Under Clinton, Vice President Gore's "Partnership for a New Government" also saved $11.8 billion by cutting 250,000 federal jobs over three years.
In light of these precedents, the "hundred days reform" leaves history with a big "ha ha" due to the extreme contrast in personnel experience, professional background, plan effectiveness, specific outcomes, and vision goals.
Moreover, debt remains high, and tax cuts are already on the way...
III. Where is the "Hundred Days Reform" Heading: It Will Continue, Yet Never Really Started
Despite all these absurd events, I believe the biggest difference between this reform and the historical "Hundred Days Reform" is that its impact will continue to ferment. It may fail to achieve its main objectives but will sow seeds in other directions, and the monstrous trees that grow from them will open wide their bloodthirsty mouths to tell the world: change never happened.
First, for Musk, although the previous phase bound him too closely to Trump, resulting in certain losses, he was not entirely without gains.
Through organizing DOGE, Musk and his allies also gained access to sensitive government data, which is crucial for expanding their commercial empire. Some of Musk's allies have been placed in key positions in major government agencies, which is beneficial for building "revolving doors" later on.
Some have analyzed that Musk's team emphasizes "sentiment," "abandoning personal gains and losses to help reform the government with sentiment and good intentions." However, a brief review of the core members' resumes reveals much suspicion.
The list of attendees accompanying Musk for the Fox interview on March 27th shows that most have deep ties with him and have been placed in key positions, not the young newcomers previously reported. Image source: author's creation.
Additionally, Musk's businesses in SpaceX and Starlink are already intertwined with government services such as satellite communications. While securing lucrative contracts, they also solidify his position in these fields.
Secondly, Musk and Trump still have deep shared interests to maintain their cooperation.
We have analyzed the series of contradictions, even structural contradictions, between Trump and Musk regarding industrial operations and policy directions, and believe that these contradictions will eventually lead to their parting ways. The "resignation" controversy can also be seen as a limited separation between the two.
However, at this stage, they still have extensive mutual benefits. Musk leading the "Department of Government Efficiency" acted as a "shield" for Trump. Knowing valuation well, Trump has reciprocated by supporting Musk multiple times. Additionally, Trump excluding Musk from trade war decisions objectively alleviated some of their conflicts. Their birth conditions and resource endowments determined that they still have points of collaboration in political-business relations, industrial manufacturing, capital operations, space launches, and technological innovation.
On Trump's cryptocurrency website, the top four executives are still him and his three sons. As interests are deeply intertwined, promoting the so-called "strategic Bitcoin reserve," American political rules have been eroded to shreds.
Previously, to retaliate against Biden's administration's tightening of cryptocurrency regulation, crypto tycoons publicly called for intervention in the U.S. election, investing nearly $250 million throughout the process, increasing Trump's major donors in his second campaign, "buying" a Congress and government most favorable to himself. Once mocking cryptocurrencies as "thin as air," Trump is now enthusiastically loosening regulations across the board.
Among the operators, Musk is included.
Thus, their cooperative relationship will enter the 2.0 phase when Musk steps out of the "Department of Government Efficiency." To empower his commercial empire, Musk will still be a stick for MAGA, and Trump will also use this stick to continue tapping, albeit less frequently. Several key forces already installed by Musk will continue to exist in Washington.
The brothers-in-arms can still walk for a while.
Thus, the "hundred days reform" cannot be considered over but will enter its 2.0 era. Only when Trump's "Make America Great Again" policies begin to backlash and the establishment America makes a strong counterattack will it be necessary for Musk to decide his next move.
And this day won't be far off. The anxiety and setbacks in recent Republican by-elections already foreshadow that it will arrive within half a year to a year at most.
Moreover, reviewing the process of Musk and the entire DOGE's governance, we find that they are not trying to overthrow the deep state but to become a new political-business family to ascend to the deep state.
As the saying goes, "I oppose you because I haven't become you yet."
Thirdly, this once again demonstrates the complex relationship between politics and economics, where there is no such thing as "vacuum business."
This complex political-business relationship, the Trump-Musk duo is merely following an old pattern. There are precedents in history, and DOGE's work originally unveiled just the "tip of the iceberg."
Have you not seen that congressmen earning only $200,000 annually possess millions to billions in wealth? Could one chat group of "Capitol Hill Stock Gods" fit all these huge fortunes? How were these accumulated?
Have you not seen that there are millions of people recorded as over 120 years old, exceeding the total strength of U.S. troops at their peak during World War II? Who collected these deceased pension benefits?
Have you not seen that numerous seemingly absurd "scientific research projects" could be included in the superpower's supposedly sacred budget, with expenses being thousands of times higher than similar market projects? Why such a stark contrast?
Have you not seen these shocking scandals, where Musk and his team only dare to expose corruption but are powerless to hold accountable? What "invisible hand" protects these thieves?
Have you not seen that Musk himself, during his tenure at DOGE, extorted various agencies and enterprises for advertising fees, secured large orders, and even abolished regulations like autonomous driving under the guise of "efficiency enhancement," bypassing all hearings? Who can stop him?
...
The "hundred days reform" once again reminds us that the political-business relationship in the U.S. has long transcended institutions. Those who once whitewashed it were prophetic, showing us what this system looks like when unleashed.
This kind of reform, which shakes the status quo but fails to strike down corruption and even turns into corruption itself, is quite different from our Hundred Days Reform. In my view, it is more akin to the revisionist reforms following the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
Just as this article was nearing its conclusion, America's media, always eager for a spectacle, began炒作 new cracks between Trump and Musk—White House plans to drastically cut NASA's budget. Facing cuts hitting their own heads, Musk immediately transformed into a "conservative," exclaiming this was "unsettling." Just last month wearing the "Trump is always right" hat, he has already called out "this is wrong" multiple times in just two weeks.
Meanwhile, American media unfriendly to Trump often overlook the new achievements of their cooperation during this phase. SpaceX is collaborating with long-time Trump supporter defense contractor Peter Thiel to build the "Golden Dome" missile defense system, planning to launch 400 to over 1,000 satellites to fly around the globe to detect and track missiles.
These seemingly contradictory messages are a microcosm of their relationship and can serve as a clue to answer why a significant number of industry and tech entrepreneurs, despite structural contradictions with the MAGA movement and aware of the impact of Trump's trade war on their global operations, still choose to support Trump.
They detest Old Money and are detested and suppressed by it. The "revolving door" has set a clear ceiling for them but also opened a "system backdoor" for them to try building their own "revolving door." Regarding the deep state, they hate it to death but cannot resist the temptation to become a new deep state themselves...
As Goethe's Faust puts it, at this moment, facing the prospect of possibly fulfilled desires, they are indifferent to continuing this game, even if the devil is on the other side, and even if they must become accomplices to the devil.
Long ago, in the article "Musk's Reforms Not Only Fail to Improve U.S. Government Efficiency but Also Exacerbate Bigger Contradictions," I cited my mentor's words at the end: "Human nature is the sum total of all social relations."
Such stories continue to validate this statement and the truth it represents. History will record how representatives of this batch of tech giants, in accordance with the social operation mechanisms described by our faith, have fallen into the most anti-intellectual quagmire of modern times through seemingly "innovative" and "groundbreaking" explorations.
This is the collapse of society; the shock when its true colors are revealed now will double what was once hyped.
The torch of the "beacon" has been knocked over; the "reform" did not replace it with a lamp but allowed the remaining candle to burn brighter and brighter.
The reformers have become hypocrites, yet they remain helpless and trapped amidst the flames.
This article is an exclusive piece by GuanchaNet, the content purely reflects the author's views, unrelated to the platform. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, and legal action will be taken for violations. Follow GuanchaNet WeChat account guanchacn for daily interesting articles.
Original link: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7494521341082583571/
Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's views. Welcome to express your opinions by clicking the "Top/Downvote" buttons below.