Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Musk Quietly Inserts DOGE Across Federal Agencies In Move That Could Uproot $162,000,000,000 Govt Industry

Published

9 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Emily Kopp

As federal employees launched protests of entrepreneur Elon Musk’s disruption of federal agencies last week, the Office of Personnel Management quietly released a memo shoring up the formal structure of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

An OPM memo dated Feb. 4 seeks the redesignation of chief information officers across the government from career positions to political appointees. OPM has recommended that every agency send a request to OPM to reclassify its CIO role from career reserved to “general” by Feb. 14.

The new CIO positions will be working with DOGE, a source familiar confirmed to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The new memo gives the greatest detail about how DOGE will operate within the federal government since a Jan. 20 executive order. Yet it has been entirely overlooked by the legacy press, which has relied largely on career officials within the government who characterize DOGE’s actions as extra-governmental. Democrats like New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have sought to portray the effort as a “coup.”

However, the memo shows that DOGE is attempting to regularize its operations within the federal government.

“It is a focus of President Trump’s administration to improve the government’s digital policy to make government more responsive, transparent, efficient, and accessible to the public, and to make using and understanding government programs easier,” the memo reads.

Unlike most major institutions, the federal government has no central IT department. InsteadIT responsibilities are dispersed across federal agencies which in turn spend billions on contractors and disparate artificial intelligence technologies. Musk’s housecleaning could reshape this $163 billion industry.

DOGE is the renamed U.S. Digital Service. The U.S. Digital Service is a small office within the White House created to build the health care exchanges under the Affordable Care Act and advises on technical strategy. How the DOGE office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building will liaison with CIOs throughout the government is not yet clear.

Washington Post report revealed Monday that Edward Coristine, the 19-year-old DOGE team member known online as “Big Balls,” has been stationed at the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Technology. The Bureau of Diplomatic Technology provides IT services.

The memo states that the new DOGE-aligned CIOs will take on a major role in public policy on technology.

The memo gives some insight into what they will prioritize, like improving government procurement policies and privacy, and deprioritize, namely diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

“Poor technology-procurement policies can endanger property and privacy rights. Inadequate security policies can lead to vulnerabilities and hacks,” it states. “Emphasis on policies like [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility] siphons labor and resources from other core government objectives.”

The Biden administration helped lay the groundwork for the change. Two earlier OPM memos cited in the Feb. 4 memo broadened the authority of government appointees to look outside of government for highly technical roles, including one released in the final months of the last administration.

2018 OPM memo under the first Trump administration noted “severe shortages of candidates and/or critical hiring needs” for STEM and cybersecurity. A September 2024 memo released under the Biden administration noted that “severe shortage of talent” in cybersecurity and other high-tech sectors persisted.

The new memo states that moving certain CIO positions away from career positions could help to alleviate it by dramatically increasing the number of candidates available to fill these important roles.

The move is in keeping with public statements about DOGE made by Musk and former DOGE co-lead and potential Ohio gubernatorial hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy about improving the federal government’s tech infrastructure, including examining the vendors the U.S. government works with and the fact that these systems don’t communicate across agencies.

Musk’s biography on his website X reads “White House Tech support.”

“My preferred title in the new administration is Volunteer IT Consultant,” Musk wrote on X on Dec. 9. “We can’t make government efficient & fix the deficit if the computers don’t work.”

“The federal government is the world’s largest IT customer… In theory, this *should* give us great buying power to negotiate good deals for taxpayers, but of course that’s not what happens,” Ramaswamy said on Dec. 5. “If the federal government were serious about reducing costs, it would procure government-wide licenses.”

Despite the intense focus on DOGE, there has been little discussion of the federal government’s existing methods for managing data and records.

The top five contractors on IT together took in $45 billion in 2024, according to Washington Technology, a trade publication that uses federal procurement data, USASpending.gov and company Security and Exchange Commission filings.

Musk’s SpaceX was the 39th largest federal contractor in government technology at approximately $1 billion. That represents about one third of Musk’s reported $3 billion in contracts with the U.S. government. Musk’s contracts in IT include the delivery of Starlink satellite internet units and services to national and state parks and the State Department, and the provision of a satellite network called Starshield to the U.S. Space Force.

While Musk’s potential conflicts have been in the spotlight, all of the top five current contractors on government IT have either a former government official or member of Congress on their boards of directors, and sometimes multiple government officials. They include a former admiral, a former Pentagon acquisitions officialjoint chiefs of staff leadership, a former deputy secretary of defense, and a former chair of the Armed Services Committee.

In addition, all of these companies use various artificial intelligence technologies across all of their federal contracts, many of them non-open source.

Musk and DOGE were dealt a setback on Saturday when District Judge Paul Engelmayer ordered a temporary stop on DOGE’s work with U.S. Treasury data, citing cybersecurity concerns. The suit was filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James and 18 other state attorneys general.

A Washington Post story reported Friday night that Booz Allen Hamilton had described the DOGE team’s access to Treasury data — reportedly “read only” access that doesn’t allow for data manipulation — as “the single greatest insider threat risk the Bureau of Fiscal Services has ever faced.”

The company put out a statement hours after the assessment became public.

“Booz Allen did not conduct a threat assessment or make recommendations regarding DOGE,” a statement read. “Commentary provided in a draft document by a subcontractor contained unsubstantiated personal opinions. … Booz Allen has terminated the subcontractor.”

Booz Allen Hamilton is the government’s fourth largest contractor on IT issues, taking in $8.2 billion in 2024.

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.

Follow Author

Business

The UN Pushing Carbon Taxes, Punishing Prosperity, And Promoting Poverty

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Samuel Peterson

Unelected regulators and bureaucrats from the United Nations have pushed for crushing the global economy in the name of saving the planet.

In October, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency within the U.N., proposed a carbon tax in order to slash the emissions of shipping vessels. This comes after the IMO’s April 2025 decision to adopt net-zero standards for global shipping.

Had the IMO agreed to the regulation, it would have been the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Thankfully, the United States was able to effectively shut down those proposals; however, while these regulations have been temporarily halted, the erroneous ideas behind them continue to grow in support.

Proponents of carbon taxes generally argue that since climate change is an existential threat to human existence, drastic measures must be taken in all aspects of our lives to address the projected costs. People should eat less meat and use public transportation more often. In the political arena, they should vote out so-called “climate deniers.” In the economic sphere, carbon taxes are offered as a technocratic quick fix to carbon emissions. Is any of this worth it? Or are the benefits greater than the costs? In the case of climate change, the answer is no.

Carbon taxes are not a matter of scientific fact. As with all models, the assumptions drive the analysis. In the case of carbon taxes, the time horizon selected plays a major role in the outcome. So, too, does the discount rate and the specific integrated assessment models.

In other words, “Two economists can give vastly different estimates of the social cost of carbon, even if they agree on the objective facts underlying the analysis.” If the assumptions are subjective, as they are in carbon taxes, then they are not scientific facts. As I’ve pointed out, “carbon pricing models are as much political constructs as they are economic tools.” One must also ask whether carbon taxes will remain unchanged or gradually increase over time to advance other political agendas. In this proposal, the answer is that it increases over time.

Additionally, since these models are driven by assumptions, one would be right in asking who gets to impose these taxes? Of course, those would be the unelected bureaucrats at the IMO. No American who would be subject to these taxes ever voted for the people attempting to create the “world’s first global carbon tax.” It brings to mind the phrase “no taxation without representation.”

In an ironic twist, imposing carbon taxes on global shipping might actually be one of the worst ways to slash emissions, given the enormous gains from trade. Simply put, trade makes the world grow rich. Not just wealthy nations like those in the West, but every nation, even the most poor, grows richer. In wealthy countries, trade can help address climate change by enabling adaptation and innovation. For poorer countries, material gains from trade can help prevent their populations from starving and also help them advance along the environmental Kuznets curve.

In other words, the advantages of trade can, over time, make a country go from being so poor that a high level of air pollution is necessary for its survival to being rich enough to afford reducing or eliminating pollution. Carbon taxes, if sufficiently high, can prevent or significantly delay these processes, thereby undermining their supposed purpose. Not to mention, as of today, maritime shipping accounts for only about 3% of total global emissions.

The same ingenuity that brought us modern shipping will continue to power the global economy and fund growth and innovation, if we let it. The world does not need a layer of global bureaucracy for the sake of virtue signaling. What it needs is an understanding of both economics and human progress.

History shows that prosperity, innovation, and free trade are what make societies cleaner, healthier, and richer. Our choice is not between saving the planet and saving the economy; it is between free societies and free markets or surrendering responsibility to unelected international regulators and busybodies. The former has lifted billions out of poverty, and the latter threatens to drag us all backwards.

Samuel Peterson is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Federal cabinet calls for Canadian bank used primarily by white farmers to be more diverse

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A finance department review suggested women, youth, Indigenous, LGBTQ, Black and racialized entrepreneurs are underserved by Farm Credit Canada.

The Cabinet of Prime Minister Mark Carney said in a note that a Canadian Crown bank mostly used by farmers is too “white” and not diverse enough in its lending to “traditionally underrepresented groups” such as LGBT minorities.

Farm Credit Canada Regina, in Saskatchewan, is used by thousands of farmers, yet federal cabinet overseers claim its loan portfolio needs greater diversity.

The finance department note, which aims to make amendments to the Farm Credit Canada Act, claims that agriculture is “predominantly older white men.”

Proposed changes to the Act mean the government will mandate “regular legislative reviews to ensure alignment with the needs of the agriculture and agri-food sector.”

“Farm operators are predominantly older white men and farm families tend to have higher average incomes compared to all Canadians,” the note reads.

“Traditionally underrepresented groups such as women, youth, Indigenous, LGBTQ, and Black and racialized entrepreneurs may particularly benefit from regular legislative reviews to better enable Farm Credit Canada to align its activities with their specific needs.”

The text includes no legal amendment, and the finance department did not say why it was brought forward or who asked for the changes.

Canadian census data shows that there are only 590,710 farmers and their families, a number that keeps going down. The average farmer is a 55-year-old male and predominantly Christian, either Catholic or from the United Church.

Data shows that 6.9 percent of farmers are immigrants, with about 3.7 percent being “from racialized groups.”

Historically, most farmers in Canada are multi-generational descendants of Christian/Catholic Europeans who came to Canada in the mid to late 1800s, mainly from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Ukraine, Russia, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Germany, and France.

Continue Reading

Trending

X