The Moral Psychopathy of DOGE

Our outrageous misfortune

We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could have gone to some great parties. Did that instead.

Elon Musk helped Trump win the election. Now, as a reward, he gets to pick who lives and who dies. He has mostly chosen death.

His actions reflect an unconscionable disregard for legal norms, ethical governance, and the public good. By using his newfound power to dismantle critical federal agencies like USAID, commandeer sensitive financial systems, and purge the civil service, he is not increasing governmental efficiency, but carrying out an ideological quest to everybody’s detriment.

Here I’ll recap the players, the events, and dive into a number of reasons you should agree with the harsh sentiments I’ve expressed. Whether approached from a moral or pragmatic angle, killing foreign aid doesn’t make sense. Finally, I’ll speculate somewhat about the lackluster response to DOGE from Democrats. If this seems like shifting the blame, it’s not meant to be read that way—they’re just the only faction with agency.

---

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

Elon Musk
Billionaire entrepreneur and CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter).
Appointed (or self-designated?) to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration, Elon is aggressively pushing for a digital, cost-cutting overhaul of federal agencies. His methods—ranging from mass contract cancellations to issuing “deferred resignation” offers—are singularly disruptive.

Donald Trump
President of the United States.
Through rapid executive orders, Trump has initiated the broad reorganization of federal spending and foreign aid programs. Although he backs Elon’s involvement, Trump has also signaled that his actions must ultimately conform to White House oversight and statutory limits.

Scott Bessent
US Treasury Secretary.
Bessent made the decision to grant Elon and his DOGE team full, read-only access to the Treasury’s payment system. This system handles over $6 trillion annually, and the move has raised concerns about data privacy and potential disruptions to critical government payments.

Marco Rubio
US Secretary of State.
Rubio has been thrust into managing USAID in the wake of its upheaval. Though he has criticized the organization for being unresponsive, his legal authority is limited by congressional mandates; the executive branch cannot abolish USAID unilaterally.

---

THE TIMELINE

As far as I can tell, the DOGE timeline began when Elon interviewed Trump on X in August. Trump called his host “the greatest cutter” and nodded along as he pitched a “government efficiency commission,” with Elon saying he’d “be happy to help out on such a commission.” At the time, it seemed as though Trump was just humouring a potential megadonor, but looking back, this was the public genesis of what has since grown into an extralegal seat of power.

After being sworn in, Trump set in motion a number of chaotic plans, sending the civil service into “absolute panic mode”. They were ordered to inform on each other, halt public communicados, and had their program budgets completely frozen.

In this context, Elon was tapped to serve as a “special government employee” at the head of DOGE, and given broad authority for a fixed term without having to divest his outside holdings. This status is generally used for part‐time advisers with expertise from the private sector, but not in this case. What DOGE is, legally speaking, is a unit inside the US Digital Service, with no statutory authorization. But to think of it that way would lead one to underestimate the power it has accrued.

On January 28th, two million federal workers were sent emails offering buyouts to those who resigned by February 6^th. The offers came from the Office of Personnel Management, America’s HR department, which has seemingly been captured by Elon allies.

Elsewhere, DOGE moved into the Treasury Department, gaining access from Secretary Bessent to their internal payments system on February 1^st. This system oversees over $6 trillion annually, covering Social Security, Medicare, employee salaries, tax refunds, and more. Though Elon’s team is said to have been given read-only access, this includes every taxpayer’s personal data.

David Lebryk, a 36-year veteran of the department, was forced to resign after standing in the way of turning over system access to DOGE. From CNN:

Lebryk’s pushback was, “We don’t do that,” the person said. “They seem to want Treasury to be the chokepoint on payments, and that’s unprecedented,” the person added, emphasizing that it is not the bureau’s role to decide which payments to make — it is “just to make the f-ing payments.”

Having captured the requisite portions of the Treasury, DOGE proceeded to dismantle the United States’ foreign aid apparatus, targeting USAID. The agency’s website has been shutdown, its global work force has been put on leave, and its contractors are expected to be laid-off. Now, “the world’s single largest humanitarian donor” is set to be absorbed by the State Department, where Secretary of State Marco Rubio plans to refurbish it into something new.

NOAA, which provides weather forecasting, ocean research, and climate monitoring, was among their next targets, as was the General Services Administration, which oversees federal real estate. Federal unions are suing in many instances to combat the blitz, but overwhelming speed and presidential support are on Elon’s side. From the NYT:

“Before Congress and the courts can respond, Elon Musk will have rolled up the whole government,” said one official who works inside an agency where representatives from Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting initiative have asserted control.

Going forward, one idea seems to be feeding the data from the Treasury’s payments system through AI tools, in order to identify opportunities to make cuts. Regardless of its success, this would mark a significant moment for the use of such technology in public policy.

By the time he is done, Elon hopes to have saved the government $2 trillion in annual spending. As it stands, nobody is capable of holding him accountable to this goal—or to his actions—save for Trump. On that front, it seems his campaign donations have “brought him freedom to run the government,” as Heather Cox Richardson recently wrote.

---

STRANGLING FOREIGN AID

“Congress still has to act if you really want to kill USAID, but until that happens this is the end,” said a former senior USAID official. “The nail in the coffin is being hammered in.”

Cutting government spending, absent a deliberate unseriousness in budgeting, is necessarily going to involve screwing with programs that people like. But in this case, the screwing seems to be the point. Wantonly slashing USAID’s operations will lead to:

1. Severe humanitarian consequences, even if reversed

   Employees of USAID have been told not to come to work anymore, across the world. Almost all of the projects they work on have been placed on hold. Many will never resume. Instantly, this puts lives into jeopardy, as the United States provides 2/5ths of global humanitarian aid. What follows are a few of the efforts that are dying by Elon’s pen.

   .

   • Bombs dropped and mines planted during the Vietnam War will not be cleared as scheduled

   • Malnourished children in US sponsored hospitals won’t receive lifesaving aid

   • Refugees, fleeing persecution, will lose access to services that help sustain them en route to safer places

   • Efforts to educate girls in repressive cultural climates will come to an end

   • Burmese freedom fighters, championing their stolen democracy, will lose American assistance

   .

   Most importantly, as Bentham’s Bulldog has extensively written about, this attack on USAID threatens PEPFAR, the single largest (and most effective) response to a disease in modern history. The President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief has saved millions of lives—as many as 25 million—since 2003, explaining a third of real income growth in sub-Saharan Africa during that time. Though it is under the State Department, it receives a large portion of its funding through USAID and the CDC, both of which have been immobilized.

   .

   If you are a utilitarian who thinks every life counts for one morally, or a contractualist who thinks we stand in at least a thin moral relation to every other human being, you should support a program like PEPFAR. If any plausible degree of moral impartiality is the correct view, it is worth it to keep PEPFAR running. On relational views, it is also worth it to keep up all of the USAID efforts briefly listed above. These are all tremendously good things the US is out there doing!

   .

   Objections can be lodged, and Amos Wollen has strongly rebutted them here. Some objectors are egoists or “based post-Christian vitalists” however, and I contend that there’s three good arguments that can be directed towards them without supposing any moral premises. I urge them to read on.

   .

2. Overstated fiscal savings and a terrible cost-benefit analysis

   Infamously, voters believe 25% of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, when the actual number is about 1%… go figure. For a budget review to prioritize USAID’s dismantling is to prioritize the end of American soft power, the rejection of far-off peoples’ goodwill, and the safety that engenders. It is to acknowledge a benign source of global influence and to reject it.

   .

   Secretary Rubio has said that “every dollar the US spends must make America safer, stronger, or more prosperous.” But that’s why JFK authorized the agency’s creation in the first place. Helping out the other nations of the world creates new markets, spreads liberal-democratic ideas, and crowds out funding from the world’s nefarious givers (China, Russia, etc.) Foreign aid improves opinions of the US abroad, and one day, gratitude will pay.

   .

   There are bad ideas that dominate in some humanitarian spaces. There are misguided projects that get greenlit. Weeding these out of the system shouldn’t require a full scale demolition!

   .

   In exchange for giving up all of it, the federal budget claws back 1%, minus whatever the cost of managing the inevitable fallout. There is no reason to think these funds will wind up being used in an efficient way domestically. Scott Alexander points out that PEPFAR’s budget could end up going towards a program like BEAD, which has spent $42 billion to connect zero rural households to the internet.

   .

3. Ideological triumph over the national interest

   Elon has called USAID a “criminal organization” that is a “viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America”. Anyone who has spent time around development studies circles knows there is a kernel of truth here. Critical theory is everywhere in development academia, and this often causes or is caused by a deep distaste for the US.

   .

   However, while an argument for dismantlement on the basis of inefficacy could get started, an argument based on employee beliefs is misguided. USAID does all of the good stuff outlined above, generating soft power effectively, in addition to being politically inept. This whole saga has made it very clear: foreign aid workers have no influence or recourse against their opponents. So why does it matter if a good chunk of them are Marxists? They’re not handing out Manifestos. Is owning the woke worth the massive cost?

   .

   What exactly makes USAID “criminal” and what the “deadly programs” it funds are is unclear. That Elon and DOGE have not clearly articulated their justification for slashing foreign aid should increase your credence that this is a purely ideological effort, without the pragmatic public interest at heart. Trump has chimed in, saying USAID is beholden to a “bunch of radical lunatics.”

   .

   The motivations here are bad and fail to engage with the questions that matter: does USAID result in moral beneficence? Does it result in American influence? Does it achieve its ends efficiently? All of these matter more for public policy than the belief systems of the organization’s employees, yet that’s the level Elon and Trump are thinking about this on.

   .

4. Flouting of norms and institutions, furthering executive overreach

   The way a shuttering like this is supposed to work is Trump goes to Congress and has them pass a bill winding-down agency operations. They are supposed to have the sole authority to do so. In circumventing that—especially in cahoots with a pseudo-governmental oligarch—the executive branch is putting out feelers for total legislative capitulation. So far, they’ve found what they seek. Whether or not the government should shut-down USAID, Trump’s chosen means are likely illegal and could (will?) prompt a constitutional crisis.

   

   Musk’s actions may be unconstitutional but “nobody should bellyache about that,” Sen. Thom Tillis said.

   .

   Separation of powers has been eroding for a long time, but the second Trump administration is poised to overthrow it completely. The implications extend far beyond foreign aid. If this succeeds, it would set a precedent that future presidents could unilaterally shut down any agency they dislike – the EPA, FDA, or Department of Education – simply by appointing private citizens to starve them of resources and authority.

   .

   DOGE is a shadow authority with no status or oversight, and the courts are, at best, a patchwork solution in a world where the legislature abdicates its role. No one should support an unchecked force having the power to override the public’s will.

---

A FUTILE RESISTANCE

[Trump] has directly fired dozens of senior staff, including senior immigration officials, Department of Justice prosecutors and others he and his appointees have identified as being hostile to his goals. These included more than a dozen inspectors-general (watchdogs who investigate departmental efficiency and wrongdoing). In the case of the inspectors-general, the president is required by law to give 30 days’ notice and an explicit reason to justify firing. He did neither.

The government is undergoing a purge and it feels as though the Democrats are completely missing-in-action, what gives? A handful of senators, Warren, Wyden, Schumer, have gotten coverage for their rebuttals, but one can hardly point to an action of theirs and say look! We got them! Not even close.

Partially, this is a result of being in opposition in both the House and Senate. The first chance for Democrats in Congress to counter DOGE may be forcing a government shutdown in March. They should do so. Efforts to subpoena him should be doubled.

However, the party is also searching for a unifying vision. Opposition to DOGE isn’t one, but it has shown signs of jointly reenergizing the liberal and activist base. On February 5^th, Senate Dems spent hours on the floor, delivering speeches in opposition to a key architect of Project 2025, a plan whose spirit is of a kind with DOGE. Such vigour will need to become the norm if they’re going to make an impression upon the public.

Elon is more vulnerable than Trump. The latter has spent ten years building up a relationship with his devoted supporters, generating a truly unusual amount of political capital. Elon hasn’t. Actions that are an affront to morality are charismatically brushed under the rug by Trump on the regular—he’s incredibly good at it. Elon is not.

If Democrats can win this very winnable messaging battle, slipping approval polls for Elon could lead Trump to sack him or reduce his role enough to prompt his exit. Prediction markets aren’t sure whether this is likely.

Assuming they can pull this off, the focus on foreign aid should lapse. Trump is no fan, but his attention is a fickle thing. Once he moves on to something new, there is every sign that Secretary Rubio will be able to quietly get things back online. Serious, mortal damage will have taken place in the interim, but this would be a major victory.

It is the opposition’s job to show we believe in maintaining a government bound by law and moral principles. Those who care about human welfare or American interests should recognize that dismantling USAID serves neither, and that advocating assistance for the global poor can be good politics. Hopefully they can win the fight.

---