The $21.7 Billion Blunder: Elon Musk and DOGE wasted your money chasing non-existent savings

And we're just getting started

They've already paved over the Rose Garden

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) released a Minority staff report today unveiling that Elon Musk’s brainchild, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has generated at least $21.7 billion in waste across the federal government between January 20, 2025, and July 18, 2025. 

The report, “The $21.7 Billion Blunder: Analyzing the Waste Generated by DOGE,” follows a months-long investigation into Elon Musk and DOGE and is the most comprehensive effort to date to quantify taxpayer dollars squandered by DOGE despite its ostensible goal of eliminating government waste.

The White House Rose Garden before and after.
How much did this act of vandalism cost?

“This report is a searing indictment of DOGE’s false claims. At the very same time that the Trump Administration is cutting health care, nutrition assistance, and emergency services in the name of ‘efficiency’ and ‘savings,’ they have enabled DOGE’s reckless waste of at least $21.7 billion dollars,” said Blumenthal. “As my PSI investigation has shown, DOGE was clearly never about efficiency or saving the American taxpayer money. I urge Inspectors General to take up our investigation’s findings and initiate a comprehensive review of DOGE’s careless actions.”

PSI’s comprehensive review of publicly available resources and independent analysis has found that DOGE has generated $21.7 billion in waste so far this year, including:

How the ‘big, beautiful bill’ reduces poor families’ ability to afford food and health care

MAGA misery

Beverly Moran, Vanderbilt University

Make America Great Again like it was then. 
Photographed by Marion Post Wolcott
for the Farm Security Administration, September 1938

Donald Trump has said the “big, beautiful bill” he signed into law on July 4, 2025, will stimulate the economy and foster financial security.

But a close look at the legislation reveals a different story, particularly for low-income people and racial and ethnic minorities.

As a legal scholar who studies how taxes increase the gap in wealth and income between Black and white Americans, I believe the law’s provisions make existing wealth inequalities worse through broad tax cuts that disproportionately favor wealthy families while forcing its costs on low- and middle-income Americans.

The widening chasm

The U.S. racial wealth gap is stark. White families’ median wealth between 2019 and 2022 grew to more than $250,000 higher than Black families’ median wealth.

This disparity is the result of decades of discriminatory policies in housing, banking, health care, taxes, education and employment.

The new legislation will widen these chasms through its permanent extension of individual tax cuts in Trump’s 2017 tax reform package. Americans have eight years of experience with those changes and how they hurt low-income families.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for example, predicted that low-income taxpayers would gain US$70 a year from the 2017 tax cuts. But that figure did not include the results of eliminating the individual mandate that encouraged uninsured people to get health insurance through the federal marketplace. That insurance was heavily subsidized by the federal government.

The Republican majority in Congress predicted that the loss of the mandate would decrease federal spending on health care subsidies. That decrease cost low-income taxpayers over $4,000 per person in lost subsidies.

The Congressional Budget Office examined the net effect of the 2025 bill by combining the tax changes with cuts to programs like Medicaid and food assistance. It found that the bill will reduce poor families’ ability to obtain food and health care.

If you don't like the numbers, fire the statistician

Trustworthy US Jobs Info Is the Latest Victim of Trump’s War on Facts

Robert Reich for Inequality Media

I spent much of the 1990s as U.S. secretary of labor. One unit of the Labor Department is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I was instructed by my predecessors as well as by the White House, and by every labor economist and statistician I came in contact with, that one of my cardinal responsibilities was to guard the independence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Otherwise, this crown jewel of knowledge about jobs and the economy would be compromised. If politicized, it would no longer be trusted as a source of information.

So what does Donald Trump do? With one fell swoop on August 1 he destroyed the BLS.

Trump didn’t like the fact that the BLS revised downward its jobs reports for April and May. Revisions in monthly jobs report are nothing new. They’re made when the bureau gets more or better information over time.

Yet with no basis in fact, Trump charged that Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of labor statistics, “rigged” the data “to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.” Then he ordered her fired and replaced with someone else—presumably someone whose data Trump will approve of.

How can anyone in the future trust the data that emerges from the Bureau of Labor Statistics when the person in charge of the agency has to come up with data to Trump’s liking in order to stay in the job? Answer: They cannot. Trump has destroyed the credibility of this extraordinarily important source of information.

When Trump doesn’t like the message he shoots the messenger, and replaces the messenger with someone who will come up with messages he approves of.

So we’re left without credible sources of information about what is really occurring.

What did he know, and when did he know it?

Trump learns nothing from history: it's the coverup that gets you

Robert Reich

Here are the two contradictions lying at the heart of the contretemps over Trump and Jeffrey Epstein:

1. As early as May, Trump knew his name was in the Epstein files. Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy informed Trump at a meeting in the White House that his name appeared “multiple times.”

But on July 15, when a journalist asked Trump, “Did [Bondi] tell you at all that your name appeared in the files?” Trump responded, “No, no.”

2. Bondi said in February that Epstein’s client list was “sitting on my desk right now to review.”

But on July 7, the Justice Department stated that a thorough review had turned up no list of Epstein’s clients.

Neither of these is evidence that Trump was involved in Epstein’s activities with underage girls. But together they suggest a cover-up — which can kill a presidency.

Exhibit A: Nixon. Of Tricky Dick the oft-repeated question was “What did he know, and when did he know it?” That’s being asked of Trump now.

Like Nixon, Trump is trying to cover up his cover-up. One day after The Wall Street Journal revealed that a letter bearing Trump’s name that was included in a 2003 birthday album for Epstein, Trump sued the Journal, calling the letter “nonexistent” and claiming the article defamed him.

Trump’s problem is that so many Americans — including most of his MAGA base — believed that, once back in the Oval Office, he’d expose a powerful global elite centered on pedophilia. But what if Trump is part of that elite?

Some of Trump’s senior staff — such as Dan Bongino, deputy director of the FBI — built their reputations on exposing that supposed elite. Bongino now says the decision not to release the Epstein files has eroded his credibility among his supporters.

Poor fellow. Bongino became a successful podcaster and media personality precisely because he fueled conspiracy theories linking pedophilia, Epstein, and the global elite.

Another of the deepening ironies here is that Trump’s effort to target his enemies has blurred the line between the White House and the Justice Department — making it harder for Trump to distance himself from the Department’s sudden reversal on releasing the Epstein files, thereby adding to the specter of a cover-up.

The appearance of a cover-up gets even worse now that the House of Representatives has left for its August recess a day earlier than expected because Speaker Mike Johnson — a close ally of Trump — wanted to stop a bipartisan discharge petition that would have forced a vote on the release of the Epstein files.

Senate Republicans may be more open to a bipartisan investigation. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says, “Whatever the bottom line is, I’m in favor of releasing it.” Hawley also suggests a joint committee made up of House members and senators to get to the bottom of the growing issue.

Recall that Nixon faced a joint committee of Congress that sought to “get to the bottom” of Watergate.

Epsteingate won’t end because members of Congress go home for August recess. Just the opposite. Because it remains unresolved, more stories will emerge suggesting a cover-up. Republican town halls will be filled with such charges.

Trump hasn’t learned the essential lesson of Watergate: When the public senses a cover-up, you have no choice but to expose everything. Otherwise, the cover-up metastasizes into a “cancer on the White House,” in John Dean’s infamous phrase.

Looking for shade

Trump really loves his daughter Ivanka

Trump Energy Department Blasted for 'Unhinged' Pro-Coal X Post

Trumpist agencies keep getting weirder and weirder

Jessica Corbett

The U.S. Department of Energy came under fire from scientists and other climate action advocates on Thursday for a social media post celebrating coal, as Donald Trump works to boost the fossil fuel, despite its devastating impacts on public health and the planet.

On X—the platform owned by billionaire Elon Musk, who left the Trump administration earlier this year—the department shared an image of coal with the message, "She's an icon. She's a legend. And she is the moment."

The audio of television host Wendy Williams saying that, while speaking about rapper Lil' Kim, often has been repurposed by social media users. However, the DOE's use of the phrase to glamorize coal sparked swift and intense backlash.

Much of the response came on X, with critics calling the post "some weird shit" and "literally unhinged."

"POV: It's 1885 and you work for the Department of Energy," wrote Jonas Nahm, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies who served on the Council of Economic Advisers under former President Joe Biden.

Democratic members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources replied: "She is inefficient. She is dirtier air. She is higher energy bills."

Multiple X users pointed to coal workers' pneumoconiosis, a condition that occurs when coal dust is inhaled—including California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's press office, which wrote, "She's black lung."

The national Democratic Party account said, "In April, Trump cut a program that gave free black lung screenings to coal miners."

Don't eat or drink this

From ‘MMS’ to ‘aerobic oxygen’, why drinking bleach has become a dangerous wellness trend

Adam Taylor, Lancaster University

If something online promises to cure everything, it’s probably too good to be true. One of the most dangerous examples? Chlorine dioxide is often marketed under names like “Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS)” or “aerobic oxygen”, buzzwords that hint at health and vitality.

But in reality, these products can make you violently ill within hours – and in some cases, they can be fatal.

Despite what the name suggests, MMS is not just bleach. Bleach contains sodium hypochlorite, whereas MMS contains sodium chlorite – a different but equally toxic chemical.

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

When ingested, sodium chlorite can cause methemoglobinemia, a condition where red blood cells lose their ability to carry oxygen. It can also trigger hemolysis (the rupture of red blood cells), followed by kidney failure and death.

When sodium chlorite mixes with acid (such as stomach acid), it converts into chlorine dioxide, a bleaching agent. This compound has strong antimicrobial properties: it can kill bacteria, fungi and even viruses like SARS-CoV-2. For that reason, it’s commonly used in sanitizing dental equipment and hospital tools like endoscopes. Its effectiveness at killing over 400 bacterial species makes it useful in cleaning – but not in humans.

While the mouth and esophagus are lined with multiple cell layers, offering some protection, the stomach and intestines are far more vulnerable. These organs have a single-cell lining to absorb nutrients efficiently – but this also means they’re highly sensitive to damage.

Charlestown Breachway Update: Thursday Aug 7th 6pm at Kettle Pond Visitor Center

With denial of federal funding, what’s next for the Charlestown Breachway?

Photo by Will Collette

Join us for an informative public session on the current state of the Charlestown Breachway. 

Learn how the Breachway is performing this summer, hear updates on recent repair efforts, and discover what's planned for future improvements and fundraising initiatives.

Featured Speakers:

Steve McCandless, GIS Coordinator & Coastal Geologist, Town of Charlestown

Emily Hall, Coastal Geologist, RI Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC)

Alicia Schaffner, Executive Director, Salt Ponds Coalition

This event is proudly presented in partnership with the Town of Charlestown, Salt Ponds Coalition, URI Coastal Resources Center, Rhode Island Sea Grant, RI Coastal Resources Management Council, RI Infrastructure Bank, University of Rhode Island, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Date: Thursday, August 7

Time: 6:00 PM

Location: Kettle Pond Visitor Center

50 Bend Road, Charlestown, RI 02813

To register: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/charlestown-breachway-status-update-tickets-1402947055409

Why Trump blames decisions on others

A narcissist with a strategy

Geoff Beattie, Edge Hill University

It was US president Harry S. Truman who, in the years just after the second world war, kept a little wooden sign on his desk which read: “The buck stops here!”. It emphasized his willingness to accept ultimate responsibility for his decisions and actions as president, even the ones that didn’t quite work out.

This phrase has since become emblematic of presidential accountability and leadership. Truman wasn’t interested in trying to pass the buck, not as a man and certainly not as president.

Interestingly, the sign was made in the Federal Reformatory (prison) at El Reno, Oklahoma, suggesting an implicit moral dimension to this issue of responsibility and accountability. We’re all accountable for our actions, whoever we are, but the president above all.

But how things seem to have changed with Donald Trump in the White House.

Trump continually takes personal credit for any perceived successes as president – fixing global tariffs, Nato members paying more, the Middle East (even taking credit for things that were completed before he took office). But he makes sure that any failures are immediately attributed elsewhere.

He frequently positions himself as surprised or “blindsided” by unpopular decisions, which are always somebody else’s doing, somebody else’s fault. Subordinates are held responsible. He is not averse to pointing the finger directly at them, and often in public, high-profile settings.

That great loyal Trump supporter, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, for example, has recently been in the firing line for being personally responsible for pausing the delivery of missile shipments to Ukraine. 

US defense officials had apparently become concerned that weapons stockpiles were becoming low, as they needed to divert arms to Israel to help in the war with Iran.

But the pause in supplying some weapons to Ukraine announced by the Pentagon on July 2 was a hugely unpopular decision that resonated around the world. Hegseth was blamed.

Some have suggested that having loyalists such as Hegseth in critical positions like secretary of defense is highly strategic, and not just for the more obvious reasons. You could argue that having loyal supporters with delegated but overlapping authority is highly advantageous when it comes to the blame game.

Trump can publicly distance himself when things go wrong (as he did here), claim a degree of surprise, and swiftly change course. That way he is publicly reasserting his role as leader without admitting fault.

Trump escalates US war on Canada

 

Fly the friendly skies of Jeffrey Epstein

Economists Pan 'Insane' Trump national sales tax

Slams Canada over non-existent fentanyl trafficking

Jake Johnson

That's an old Soviet car - Russian, not American -
in the GOP post on Trump's national sales tax 

Donald Trump  used “emergency” authority to impose high tariff rates on imports from dozens of American trading partners, including Canada—a move that economists criticized as a senseless approach to global trade that will further increase costs for consumers who are already struggling to get by.

Trump outlined the new tariff rates in executive orders signed just ahead of his arbitrary August 1 deadline for U.S. trading partners to negotiate a deal with the White House, whose erratic, aggressive, and legally dubious approach has alarmed world leaders.

Under the president's new orders, Canadian goods that are not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will face 35% import duties, while steel and aluminum imports will face a 50% tariff rate.

Trump claimed Canada "has failed to cooperate in curbing the ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs." But Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney hit back in a statement early Friday, noting that Canada "accounts for only 1% of U.S. fentanyl imports and has been working intensively to further reduce these volumes."

"While we will continue to negotiate with the United States on our trading relationship, the Canadian government is laser-focused on what we can control: building Canada strong," Carney added. "Canadians will be our own best customer, creating more well-paying careers at home, as we strengthen and diversify our trading partnerships throughout the world."

Economist Brad Setser said that while the impact of the higher tariff on Canadian imports could be muted because of the exemption of USMCA-covered products such as oil, the 35% rate is still "insane" and "dumb."

"Same with the high tariff on Switzerland. Crazy," Setser wrote, pointing to the 39% rate for Switzerland imports. "This isn't just protectionism, it is bad protectionism—and will have all sorts of unintended consequences."

Trump congratulates himself

The new tariff rates for Canadian goods will take effect Friday while the higher rates for other nations such as Brazil (50%), India (25%), and Vietnam (20%) won't kick in until next week "to give Customs and Border Protection officials time to prepare," The Washington Post reported. Customs and Border Protection collects tariffs, which are effectively taxes paid by importers—who often pass those costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices.

"Trump's definition of 'winning' is hitting the American people with ever-higher taxes," Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote late Thursday.

Recent U.S. economic data indicates that Trump's tariffs are already putting upward pressure on prices—and companies are using the president's trade chaos as an excuse to drive up prices further and pad their bottom lines.

The Tax Foundation noted earlier this week that "a variety of food imports" will be impacted by Trump's tariffs, likely leading to "higher food prices for consumers." More than 80% of Americans are already concerned about the price of groceries and many are struggling to stay afloat, according to survey data released Thursday by The Century Foundation.

Baker warned Thursday that even nations that have agreed to trade frameworks with the U.S. are not out of the woods.

"Deals are meaningless to Trump. He'll break them in a second any time he feels like it," Baker wrote. "I trust everyone negotiating with Trump understands that fact."

Romaine lettuce doesn't have to be a health risk

Dirty water, warm trucks, and the real reason romaine keeps making us sick

Cornell University

Romaine lettuce has a long history of E. coli outbreaks, but scientists are zeroing in on why. A new study reveals that the way lettuce is irrigated—and how it’s kept cool afterward—can make all the difference. 

Spraying leaves with untreated surface water is a major risk factor, while switching to drip or furrow irrigation cuts contamination dramatically. Add in better cold storage from harvest to delivery, and the odds of an outbreak plummet. 

The research offers a clear, science-backed path to safer salads—one that combines smarter farming with better logistics.

E. coli outbreaks in romaine lettuce have long been a public health concern. and now a new Cornell University paper suggests that a combination of efforts in the field, and even postharvest techniques, can minimize risk to human health.

Co-authored by Renata Ivanek, a professor in the department of population medicine and diagnostic sciences, and Martin Wiedmann, professor in food safety, the paper outlines interventions likely to make a concrete difference in the safety of the nation's romaine.

Brown University explains why it caved in to Trump extortion

A "voluntary agreement" that would make Neville Chamberlain proud 

Brown University

Donald Trump gloats

On Wednesday, July 30, Brown University reached a voluntary agreement with the federal government to restore funding for the University's federally sponsored medical and health sciences research and resolve three open reviews assessing Brown’s compliance with federal nondiscrimination obligations. 

The agreement will reinstate payments for active research grants and restore Brown's ability to compete for new federal grants and contracts, while also meeting Brown’s core imperative of preserving the ability for its students and scholars to teach and learn without government intrusion.

Brown President Christina H. Paxson shared details on the agreement in a letter to the Brown community.

“The University's foremost priority throughout discussions with the government was remaining true to our academic mission, our core values and who we are as a community at Brown,” Paxson wrote. “This is reflected in key provisions of the resolution agreement preserving our academic independence, as well as a commitment to pay $50 million in grants over 10 years to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island, which is aligned with our service and community engagement mission.”

Since early this year, Paxson has publicly asserted Brown's commitment to meeting its obligations to follow the law, as well as the University’s willingness to understand any valid concerns the government may have about the ways in which the University fulfills those legal obligations. 

Paxson stated in a March communication that was broadly circulated publicly that Brown should uphold its ethical and legal obligations while also steadfastly defending academic freedom and freedom of expression, for both the University as an institution and for individual members of the Brown community.

“By voluntarily entering this agreement, we meet those dual obligations,” Paxson wrote to the campus. “We stand solidly behind commitments we repeatedly have affirmed to protect all members of our community from harassment and discrimination, [and] we protect the ability of our faculty and students to study and learn academic subjects of their choosing.” 

She added, “We applaud the agreement’s unequivocal assertion that the agreement does not give the government the ‘authority to dictate Brown’s curriculum or the content of academic speech.’”   

The full text of Paxson’s letter is included below.