Elon Musk just pulled back the curtain on what’s really fueling government waste and fraud. Speaking with Senator Ted Cruz, he revealed there are at least 14 “magic money computers” that can “send money out of nothing,” meaning these government systems are issuing trillions in payments with little oversight or real-time accountability.
Musk explained that these computers don’t operate in a way where they “talk to each other.” Instead, Musk explained they function in a way that allows money to move through government agencies unchecked, sometimes in ways that don’t align with official records.
The numbers lawmakers see aren’t always accurate, with government books potentially off by 5% to 10%. That could mean up to hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars are misallocated or disappearing, while the actual financial activity remains hidden deep inside these systems.
Join 100K+ Substack readers and 1.6 million 𝕏 users who follow the work of Vigilant Fox.
Subscribe for top-tier news aggregation and exclusive stories you won’t find anywhere else.
“So you may think that the government computers all talk to each other. They synchronize, they add up what funds are going somewhere, and it’s coherent that the numbers, for example, that you’re presented as a senator are actually the real numbers. They’re not,” Musk explained.
“They’re not totally wrong,” he continued. “They’re probably off by 5% or 10% in some cases. So I call it Magic Money Computer. Any computer which can just make money out of thin air. That’s Magic Money.”
“So how does that work?” Ted Cruz asked.
“It just issues payments,” Musk answered. “I think we found now 14 magic money computers. They just send money out of nothing.”
This raises a critical question: If the government’s books are off by 5% to 10% in some cases, leaving up to hundreds of billions of dollars unaccounted for, where is all that money actually going?
On a related note, Elon Musk has previously called government-funded NGOs one of the biggest scams in history, saying they take hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars with little accountability, leading to massive waste and misallocation.
He estimates that up to $700 billion per year is funneled through these so-called nonprofits, many of which he claims are nothing more than money laundering operations disguised as charity.
Instead of focusing on bureaucratic structures, Musk believes the key to understanding waste, fraud, and financial manipulation is to go straight to the source: the computers handling the payments.
Musk previously said something to the effect, “I don’t want a job in Washington. All I want is the login for every computer.”
Musk explained that policy decisions eventually filter down to computers for implementation.
The problem? These systems are buried under layers of bureaucracy, making it nearly impossible for lawmakers—or even agency heads—to track where the money is actually going in real-time.
He explained, “The government is run by computers. So you’ve got essentially several hundred computers that effectively run the government. So when somebody, like, even when the President issues an executive order, that’s got to go through a whole bunch of people until ultimately it is implemented at a computer somewhere,” Musk explained.
“And if you want to know what the situation is with the accounting and you’re trying to reconcile accounting and get rid of waste and fraud, you must be able to analyze the computer databases. Otherwise, you can’t figure it out because all you’re doing is asking a human who will then ask another human, ask another human, and finally usually ask some contractor who will ask another contractor to do a query on the computer,” Musk lamented.
“That’s how it actually works,” he stressed. “So it’s many layers deep. So the only way to reconcile the databases and get rid of waste and fraud is to actually look at the computers and see what’s going on. That’s what I sort of cryptically referred to, reprogramming the matrix. You have to understand what’s going on in the computers. You have to reconcile the computer databases in order to identify the waste of fraud.”
Watch the full conversation below:
A little bit about me.
I was a healthcare veteran until Biden’s vax mandates hit America. That’s when I became a citizen journalist.
Since then, I’ve clipped thousands of videos featuring dissident doctors dismantling the COVID narrative, amassing billions of views. If you’ve followed the COVID scam, there’s a good chance you’ve seen my work.
Big things are happening! This Substack is evolving fast. I’m ramping up production, expanding the team, and working hard to bring you the best content possible.
The more support this page gets, the better the user experience becomes. If you’re enjoying the work here, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support truly makes a difference.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
For the summer leading up to the 2025 fall budget, the Carney government has launched a federal spending review aimed at finding savings that will help pay for recent major policy announcements. While this appears to be a step in the right direction, lessons from the past suggest the government must be more ambitious in its review to overcome the fiscal challenges facing Canada.
In two letters sent to federal cabinet ministers, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne outlined plans for a “Comprehensive Expenditure Review” that will see ministers evaluate spending programs in each of their portfolios based on the following: whether they are “meeting their objectives” are “core to the federal mandate” and “complement vs. duplicate what is offered elsewhere by the federal government or by other levels of government.” Ultimately, as a result of this review, ministers are expected to find savings of 7.5 per cent in 2026/27, rising to 10 per cent the following year, and reaching 15 per cent by 2028/29.
This news comes after the federal government has recently made several major policy announcements that will significantly impact the bottom line. Most notably, the government added an additional $9.3 billion to the defence budget for this fiscal year, and committed to more than double the annual defence budget by 2035. Without any policies to offset the fiscal impact of this higher defence spending (along with other recentchanges), this year’s budget deficit (which the Liberal’s election platform initially pegged at $62.3 billion) will likely surpass $70.0 billion, and potentially may reach as high as $92.2 billion.
A spending review is long overdue. Recent research suggests that each year the federal government spends billions towards programs that are inefficient and/or ineffective, and which should be eliminated to find savings. Moreover, past governments (both federal and provincial) have proven that fiscal adjustments based on spending reviews can be very successful—just look at the Chrétien government’s 1995 Program Review.
In its 1995 budget, the federal Chrétien government launched a comprehensive review of all federal spending that—along with several minor tax increases—ultimately balanced the federal budget in two years and helped Canada avert a fiscal crisis. Two aspects of this review were critical to its success: it reviewed all federal spending initiatives with no exceptions, and it was based on clear criteria that not only tested whether spending was efficient, but which also reassessed the federal government’s role in delivering programs and services to Canadians. Unfortunately, the Carney government’s review is missing these two critical aspects.
The Carney government already plans to exclude large swathes of the budget from its spending review. While it might be reasonable for the government to exclude defence spending given our recent commitments (though that doesn’t appear to be the plan), the Carney government has instead chosen to exclude all transfers to individuals (such as seniors’ benefits) and provinces (such as health-care spending) from any spending cuts. Based on the last official spending estimates for this year, these two areas alone represent a combined $254.6 billion—or more than half of total spending after excluding debt charges—that won’t be reviewed.
This is a major weakness in the government’s plan. Not only does this limit the dollar value of savings available, it also means a significant portion of the government’s budget is missing out on a reassessment that could lead to more effective delivery of services for Canadians.
For example, as part of the 1995 program review, the Chrétien government overhauled how it delivered welfare transfers to provincial governments. Specifically, the federal government replaced two previous programs with a new Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) that addressed some major flaws with how the government delivered welfare assistance. While the transition to the CHST did include a $4.6 billion reduction in spending on government transfers, the new structure gave the federal government better control over spending growth in the future and allowed provincial governments more flexibility to tailor social assistance programs to local needs and preferences.
In addition to considering all areas of spending, the Carney government’s spending review also needs to be more ambitious in its criteria. While the current criteria are an important start—for example, it’s critical the government identifies and eliminates spending programs that aren’t achieving their stated objectives or which are simply duplicating another program—the Carney government should take it one step further and explicitly reflect on the role of the federal government itself.
Among other criteria that focused on efficiency and affordability of programs, the 1995 program review also evaluated every spending program based on whether government intervention was even necessary, and whether or not the federal government specifically should be involved. As such, not only did the program review eliminate costly inefficiencies, it also included the privatization of government-owned entities such as Petro-Canada and Canadian National Railway—which generated considerable economic benefits for Canadians.
Today, the federal government devotes considerable amounts of spending each year towards areas that are outside of its jurisdiction and/or which government shouldn’t be involved in the first place—national pharmacare, national dental care, and national daycare all being prime examples. Ignoring the fact that many of these areas (including the three examples) are already excluded from the Carney government’s spending review, the government’s criteria makes no explicit effort to test whether a program is targeting an area that’s outside of the federal purview.
For instance, while the government will test whether or not a spending program fits within the federal mandate, that mandate will not actually ensure the government stays within its own jurisdictional lane. Instead, the mandate simply lays out the key priorities the Carney government intends to focus on—including vague goals including, “Bringing down costs for Canadians and helping them to get ahead” which could be used to justify considerable federal overreach. Similarly, the government’s other criterion to not duplicate programs offered by other levels of government provides little meaningful restriction on government spending that is outside of its jurisdiction so long as that spending can be viewed as “complementing” provincial efforts. In other words, this spending review is unlikely to meaningfully check the costly growth in the size of government that Canada has experienced over the last decade.
Simply put, the Carney government’s spending review, while a step in the right direction, is missing key elements that will limit its effectiveness. Applying key lessons from the Chrétien government’s spending review is crucial for success today.
President Donald Trump on Saturday said he will impose 30% tariffs on imported goods from the European Union and Mexico in his latest move to balance trade between the U.S. and other countries.
The tariffs are set to go into effect Aug. 1.
Saturday’s announcement comes a day after the U.S. Department of Treasury released a report Friday showing that tariff revenue helped revenue in the month of June exceed expenses by $27 billion.
“We have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with The European Union, and we have concluded we must move away from these long-term, large, and persistent, Trade Deficits, engendered by your Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies, and Trade Barriers,” Trump wrote in the letter to the EU and posted on his Truth Social account. “Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from Reciprocal.”
The 30% tariff on EU goods is higher than expected. EU trade ministers are scheduled to meet Monday and could agree to increase tariffs on U.S. goods as retaliation.
In his letter to Mexico, Trump said the U.S. neighbor to the south has helped stem the flow of illegal narcotics and people from entering the country but added that it needed to do more to prevent North America from being a “Narco-Trafficking Playground.”
Earlier in the week, Trump announced new tariffs on several other countries, including 20% tariffs on imports from the Philippines; 25% on Brunei and Moldova; 30% on Algeria, Iraq and Libya; and 50% on Brazil.
All of the new tariffs announced this week are scheduled to go into effect Aug. 1.
• The Center Square reporters Therese Boudreaux and Andrew Rice contributed to this report.
