-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz publicly criticized Elon Musk on Monday, calling him a "terrible president" in a post on X (formerly Twitter). Walz’s remarks come as controversy grows over Musk’s leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and his recent decisions, which many argue are undermining the federal government.
"Elon Musk is a terrible president," Walz wrote. His comments reflect mounting frustration among Democrats over Musk’s influence, particularly as DOGE expands its control over key government agencies.
Musk’s tenure as the head of DOGE has been marked by aggressive restructuring efforts, including gaining access to the Treasury Department’s federal payment system and attempting to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
His actions have sparked widespread concern among lawmakers, government officials, and policy experts, with many questioning whether he is overstepping his authority.
Walz’s post appears to place blame not only on Musk but also on President Donald Trump, suggesting that Musk’s unchecked power is a direct result of the current administration’s policies. The governor has been a vocal critic of Trump’s handling of government operations, and Musk’s appointment to DOGE has only intensified those concerns.
Over the past several weeks, DOGE has been accused of interfering in federal financial operations, bypassing traditional oversight mechanisms, and implementing policies that favor corporate interests over public welfare.
The agency’s access to the Treasury Department’s federal payment system has raised alarms among Democrats, who argue that Musk’s involvement in financial decision-making poses serious risks.
Despite resistance from career Treasury officials, DOGE successfully obtained access to a system that processes more than $6 trillion annually. This system controls funding for Social Security, Medicare, federal employee salaries, government contractor payments, and tax refunds.
Critics argue that Musk’s influence in such a critical financial system could lead to serious disruptions and mismanagement.
DOGE has defended its actions by claiming that it is working to ensure government spending aligns with the Trump administration’s agenda. However, Democrats, including Walz, warn that Musk’s unchecked control could lead to corruption, financial instability, and a loss of trust in federal institutions.
The situation has escalated further with DOGE’s recent moves against USAID. The agency, responsible for directing billions in international aid, has been effectively dismantled under Musk’s leadership.
Reports indicate that DOGE attempted to place USAID under the State Department’s control, a move widely seen as an effort to weaken U.S. foreign aid programs.
Walz’s remarks reflect growing bipartisan concern over Musk’s role in the government. While Republicans have largely defended Musk’s actions, some within the party have expressed unease over his increasing influence.
Critics argue that his corporate background does not equip him to handle the complexities of federal governance.
Musk, for his part, has dismissed the criticisms as politically motivated. Responding to Walz’s post, Musk wrote, "The government should be run efficiently, and that’s exactly what we’re doing at DOGE. Those who oppose us are just afraid of change."
His response did little to ease concerns among opponents. Walz doubled down on his criticism, later posting, "Running a government is not the same as running a corporation. Musk’s reckless decisions are putting millions of Americans at risk."
Democrats in Congress are now calling for increased oversight of DOGE. Some lawmakers have proposed hearings to investigate Musk’s influence over federal agencies and his decision-making process.
Others are pushing for legislation that would limit the powers of DOGE and require stricter accountability measures.
The growing controversy has also fueled debates about the broader role of billionaires in government. Musk’s tenure at DOGE has reignited discussions about whether individuals with corporate backgrounds should hold key government positions without prior experience in public service.
Public reaction to Walz’s criticism has been mixed. Supporters of Musk argue that his leadership is necessary to streamline government operations, reduce inefficiencies, and challenge bureaucratic obstacles.
Opponents, however, warn that his aggressive approach is destabilizing federal agencies and prioritizing corporate interests over the needs of the American people.
As tensions continue to rise, the coming weeks will be crucial in determining the future of DOGE and Musk’s role in the federal government. If Democrats succeed in pushing for greater oversight, Musk could face increased scrutiny and potential limitations on his authority.
However, if the Trump administration continues to back him, DOGE’s influence may expand even further.
For now, Walz’s statement has added fuel to an already heated debate. His direct criticism of Musk signals that opposition to DOGE’s policies is intensifying, and the battle over government efficiency versus government accountability is far from over.
