- Musk announced on X Spaces that President Trump has given the green light to dismantle USAID, calling it “a criminal and evil organization” and saying, “Time for it to die.”
- Senator Chris Van Hollen and other lawmakers argue that USAID cannot be dissolved without congressional approval and that its closure would weaken U.S. foreign policy and national security
- Musk is reportedly aiming to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget, impacting millions of government workers.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has become the latest battleground in an escalating political and legal fight, following Elon Musk’s announcement that President Donald Trump has signaled support for its potential shutdown.
The move, which Musk has framed as part of a broader government efficiency initiative, has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers, national security officials, and policy analysts.
‘Musk Doesn’t Get to Be a Dictator in Washington’
At a press conference held at USAID headquarters on Tuesday, Senator Chris Van Hollen and other lawmakers condemned what they described as an illegal and reckless dismantling of a key government agency.
“Elon Musk may get to be the dictator of Tesla, but he doesn’t get to be the dictator here in Washington, D.C.,” Van Hollen said, underscoring growing concerns over Musk’s unchecked power in U.S. policy making.
Lawmakers have warned that dismantling USAID would have severe consequences for America’s foreign policy and hand geopolitical victories to adversaries like Russia and China. Critics argue that the shutdown is not about efficiency but a deliberate effort to undermine U.S. influence abroad.
A recent analysis by The Economist, published on Monday, further fuels these concerns, warning that Musk appears to be applying the same aggressive, autocratic management style to the U.S. government as he did with Twitter.
The publication described the USAID shutdown as “the most dramatic example of what seems to be Mr. Musk’s plan for the whole of government”, likening his approach to the mass firings and unilateral decision-making that followed his $44 billion takeover of the social media platform.
According to The Economist, Musk is attempting to cut $1 trillion—more than half of all discretionary spending—from the federal budget, a radical move that could destabilize essential government programs and services. Just as he quickly reduced Twitter’s workforce by four-fifths, Musk appears to be overseeing a similar sweeping reorganization of federal agencies—but on a much larger and riskier scale.
‘A Gift to Russia and China’? National Security Concerns Rise
Beyond the domestic implications, officials warn that shuttering USAID would undermine U.S. national security and strengthen geopolitical rivals like Russia and China.
“This is an absolute gift to our adversaries,” Van Hollen said, pointing to a post on X (formerly Twitter) by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who praised Musk’s move as a “smart decision.”
The agency has long played a vital role in stabilizing fragile regions, countering foreign influence, and providing humanitarian aid to communities affected by famine, disease, and conflict. Its dissolution, critics argue, would leave a vacuum that Russia and China are eager to exploit.
President Trump’s Approval and the Republican Divide
Musk’s live session on X Spaces earlier this week confirmed that Trump fully supports USAID’s dismantling, fueling bipartisan concerns about the scope of Musk’s influence in government operations.
However, Republican lawmakers have shown divided reactions. While some have defended the move as a necessary step in cutting bureaucratic inefficiencies, others have expressed concerns over Musk’s growing power.
“This isn’t about efficiency or cutting waste,” said Rep. Don Beyer. “This is a billionaire playing kingmaker with global consequences.”
The Twitter Playbook? Musk’s Management Style Under Scrutiny
Critics argue that Musk is applying the same approach to government that he used at Twitter, where he took full control, fired key decision-makers, and reduced the workforce by nearly 80% in the months following his acquisition.
As The Economist noted, Musk’s Twitter-style governance involved a small circle of trusted advisors combing through internal records, Slack messages, and emails to determine who would be fired. Now, he is implementing a similar method at the federal level—targeting agencies deemed inefficient, controversial, or politically expendable.
The federal government, however, is a far larger and more complex institution than Twitter, with over 2 million employees. The prospect of a tech billionaire wielding unilateral power over government operations has raised alarm among legal experts, former civil servants, and watchdog organizations.
Legal and Legislative Challenges Mount
Legal scholars have cast doubt on the legality of the USAID shutdown, noting that the agency was created by Congress and cannot be dismantled without legislative approval. Lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the move are already in progress, with some state attorneys general seeking emergency injunctions to block the shutdown.
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers are exploring legislative maneuvers to counter Musk’s moves, with efforts to introduce spending protections for USAID and limit executive control over federal agencies.
A Larger Battle Over Corporate Power in Washington
Beyond the immediate fight over USAID, the situation raises larger questions about the role of billionaires in American governance.
Musk, whose business empire includes SpaceX, Tesla, Starlink, and X, now occupies a direct role in shaping U.S. government policy, prompting concerns over the lack of oversight on his influence.
As lawsuits progress and Congress weighs in, the future of USAID remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that this battle is no longer just about foreign aid—it’s about the future of government accountability and the balance of power in Washington.
With Musk increasingly shaping federal decision-making, critics warn that the USAID controversy may be only the beginning of a larger transformation in how the U.S. government operates under Trump’s second term.