Elon Musk Wants to Use AI to Cut Government Programs
So I asked Musk's AI program what it would recommend
[I have changed the name of my newsletter, previously Climate Insider. I reserve the right to grow up and pick a better name in the future. Regardless, it’s still me, trying to provide occasional insights that you won’t find elsewhere on climate, energy and environmental happenings in Washington. Feedback always welcome.]
The world’s richest man has decided that he has the authority to determine which government agencies and programs should be preserved and which to cut. So far, President Trump, his Cabinet, and Republicans in Congress are supporting Musk’s power grab.
Elon has big plans to use artificial intelligence to identify which staff to fire, programs to cut, and regulations to roll back. I decided this would be a good time to check out “Grok,” the AI portal owned by Musk and his company, xAI.
The Wood Chipper
I typed in a simple question on what it would recommend for spending cuts, and a few follow up queries. The answers are awkward for Musk, who wants to put at lest one federal agency (US AID) through the “wood chipper.”
When I asked whether all funding should be eliminated for US AID, Grok was not a fan:
“Complete elimination of [US AID’s] funding would likely be detrimental to both humanitarian outcomes and U.S. strategic interests.”
[All answers have been edited for brevity, but you can check Grok out yourself, at least until it is reprogrammed by Musk’s minions.]
An Unconstitutional and Unethical Power Grab
Grok also has an accurate take on Elon Musk’s unelected and unaccountable role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE):
“Congress holds the power of the purse, meaning it authorizes and appropriates federal spending. Therefore, any significant changes or cuts suggested by Musk would need to go through Congressional approval.”
Grok further warns of Musk’s conflicts of interests, noting:
“Musk's companies like SpaceX and Tesla have significant interactions with government contracts and regulations. His role potentially blurs lines between personal business interests and public service, raising ethical questions.”
Grok’s Top 5 Spending Cuts
When asked which federal programs should eliminated to reduce federal spending, Grok’s top five cuts were:
Agricultural subsidies
Tax deductions and credits such as the mortgage interest deduction
Federal workforce training programs
Military spending
Arts and humanities programs
Musk appears to have spent relatively little time looking at the Defense Department’s budget, which is more than twenty times the size of US AID.
Protecting the Most Vulnerable
Grok also provided a notable caution about cuts:
“Any reduction must not disproportionately affect those in need or exacerbate social inequalities.”
Asked to elaborate, Grok responded with the following, among other reasons:
Long-term Costs: Immediate savings from cutting programs for the vulnerable might be offset by long-term costs. For example, cutting early childhood education might lead to higher costs in special education, crime prevention, or social services down the line. Similarly, reducing healthcare benefits can lead to higher emergency room visits, which are more expensive than preventive care.
Moral and Ethical Responsibility: There's a moral dimension to governance where the state has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable citizens.
Musk should take a cue from his signature AI program. An Executive Order from Trump, however, threatens to target all government employees and programs that address disproportionate. They lump these programs, including environmental justice initiatives, together under the banner of halting “DEI” programs.
The suggestion is that if you have ever had to sit through a diversity training that you didn’t like, then it follows that you don’t want federal agencies protecting your community if it has especially high air pollution, lead pipes, or Superfund sites. This is a clear case of political whistle blowing over pragmatism. Programs that address disproportionate exposure to air pollution and water pollution are smart investments for communities across America, following the pollution to put dollars where they are most useful.
Tearing Down EPA
In addition to Musk’s efforts to gut US AID, the Trump administration is being especially aggressive in targeting EPA. As I have written about previously, Russell Vought, Trump’s pick to head OMB, has called for EPA staff to be “traumatized” and made out as “villains” in order to clear the decks for energy companies that don’t wont to be held accountable for their pollution. This week, Vought passed his first Senate confirmation test on a party-line vote. He will soon take over the office that will prepare the president’s budget request to congress and oversee regulatory rollbacks.
Amid reports that more than 1,000 staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may soon be fired, I posed a question to Grok on whether that’s a good idea. The response:
“The decision should balance fiscal responsibility with the imperative to protect the environment and public health, recognizing that the costs of environmental degradation can far exceed the savings from job cuts.”
Grok’s answer is correct. According to a study I co-authored on the costs and benefits of EPA regulations issued in the past three years, the economic and health benefits of the pollution reductions exceed the costs by $250 billion annually. Rolling back these regulations will lead to more polluting from smokestacks and tailpipes, shifting costs from corporate polluters to people who will be at higher risk of cancer, asthma, lung disease and heart disease.
The Promise of AI Identifying Government Savings is a Sham
The refreshingly rational responses from Musk’s AI platform underscores the reality: Musk’s promise of AI-driven savings is a sham intended to make an agenda driven by ideology appear to be some well-thought out effort at good governance. In fact, the promise of AI-driven reforms is already being used as an excuse for Musk to take over sensitive government data and functions.
AI programs will deliver what they are programmed to deliver. Musk intends to put himself and his programmers in charge of deciding the answers. He is not going to rely on an AI-fueled magic 8-ball that spits out answers different from his own.