Written by Matthew Carter.

In a move that has stirred controversy across the political spectrum, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is zeroing in on one of the biggest sacred cows in U.S. spending: foreign aid. With national debt ballooning to an eye-watering $36.2 trillion, trimming the budget is no longer optional. Musk, alongside entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, is looking to slash a jaw-dropping $2 trillion from the federal budget—and foreign aid is squarely in the crosshairs.

Foreign aid isn’t exactly pocket change. In 2022 alone, the U.S. handed out $70 billion to various economic, humanitarian, and strategic initiatives worldwide. Add to that the staggering $175 billion already allocated to Ukraine since 2022, and it’s clear why this area has caught the attention of the efficiency hawks. For DOGE, it’s about making tough calls, but not everyone agrees on where to draw the line.

Representative Ralph Norman from South Carolina says cutting aid is a no-brainer but insists Israel should remain an exception. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer echoed this sentiment, advocating for a blanket cut everywhere else. The boldest take? Former Congressman Ron Paul, who called foreign aid an “immoral transfer of wealth,” adding that it’s unconstitutional and hurts middle-class Americans. Musk even chimed in, saying he’d love to see Paul join DOGE. That’s high praise, but will this approach resonate with the broader public?

Meet the Players Behind DOGE

Elon Musk might be the face of the operation, but the cast of characters driving DOGE’s mission is as colorful as they come. Vivek Ramaswamy, the former biotech CEO and GOP presidential contender, is taking a leading role. President-elect Donald Trump tapped Ramaswamy for his business acumen and shared vision of cutting through government inefficiency. Together, they’re putting the spotlight on bloated budgets and bureaucratic red tape.

And then there’s Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who’s been handed the reins of the newly formed Delivering on Government Efficiency Subcommittee. With her background in running a successful construction business, Greene is no stranger to tightening the purse strings. “In the private sector, if you’re not doing your job, you get fired,” she bluntly stated. “But in government, failure gets rewarded. That’s about to change.”

This subcommittee isn’t just window dressing. Its mission is to root out waste, fraud, and abuse—a tall order in a system designed to resist change. Whether it’s streamlining federal agencies or tackling inflation-driving spending, Greene and her team have their work cut out for them. But with Musk and Ramaswamy leading the charge, they’re confident they can deliver results.

Will the Public Buy In?

For all its ambition, DOGE’s plan isn’t without critics. Cutting foreign aid sounds good in theory, but what happens when those dollars stop flowing? Supporters argue that the money saved could be redirected to pressing domestic issues, like infrastructure or healthcare. Skeptics counter that pulling back on international support could weaken U.S. influence abroad, leaving a vacuum for rival powers like China and Russia to fill.

Then there’s the political calculus. While GOP lawmakers like Comer and Greene are fully on board, moderates and Democrats are likely to push back. Even within the Republican Party, there’s division. How do you sell cuts to a program that’s been a staple of American diplomacy for decades?

Public opinion will also play a significant role. Taxpayers are fed up with wasteful spending, but convincing them that foreign aid is the problem might not be easy. There’s also the question of optics. Critics are already framing DOGE as a billionaire’s vanity project, a convenient way for Musk to play politics without running for office. Whether true or not, perception matters.

Our Take

While the Department of Government Efficiency’s goals are admirable, the execution could be a different story. Cutting foreign aid may look like an easy fix on paper, but the potential fallout—both domestically and internationally—can’t be ignored. Yes, the government needs to tighten its belt, but gutting programs that promote global stability might end up costing more in the long run.

It’s also worth questioning whether DOGE’s laser focus on foreign aid is the best use of its resources. What about corporate subsidies or inflated defense contracts? These areas are ripe for scrutiny, yet they’ve been noticeably absent from the conversation. If this initiative truly aims to “make America great again,” it needs to be comprehensive, not selective.

At the end of the day, government waste isn’t just about dollars and cents; it’s about priorities. And while DOGE’s intentions are good, its approach might leave a lot to be desired.