Economic conservatives have complained that Musk and DOGE do not target the biggest government spending sources, but instead pursue a symbolic culture war with little budget impact.

On January 24, the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research published poll results showing that 40% disapprove and about a 33% approve of DOGE, while a majority has an unfavorable opinion of Musk.

[9] In November 2024, Politico reported on growing concern from the tech world and several policy experts that the project was over-promising or could potentially tear down "much of the essential infrastructure that ushers along American innovation".

The Wall Street Journal published an analysis of that claim and found that the savings "could be closer to $2.6 billion over the next year if spending levels remained constant—and about 2% of the funds would have gone to contracts related to DEI.

[31] During the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee hearing on Internal Revenue Service modernization, Nina Olson, the director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights, described the deferred resignation offers as "coerced job cuts and firings" causing "a brain drain" at the IRS.

"[33] Multiple news agencies have raised questions as to whether Musk's companies being contractors to the federal government causes a conflict of interest with their proposed work in DOGE.

[41][39] White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in early February 2025 that Musk would determine if his DOGE work presented a conflict of interest.

[46] Author Jeet Heer argued in The Nation that the actions of DOGE were a "time-honored revolutionary tactic of developing dual power in order to seize control" and constituted a coup.

[51] Columbia University professor Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh argues that the DOGE's fire sale of more than 500 government buildings could crash financial securities linked to commercial mortgages.

[53] Brent Swart, president of the Iowa Soybean Association, says that suspending the USDA puts farmers at risk and jeopardizes programs that demonstrated public returns.

[55] Laurence Tribe, constitutional scholar at Harvard Law School, argues that the power that Musk and DOGE attempt to exercise over federal departments is illegal.

[56] Democratic representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-18) has criticized DOGE, calling it "unconstitutional and illegal" in relation to its proposals regarding the impoundment of appropriated funds by Congress.

[57] Democratic representative Ro Khanna (CA-17) stated that he was "appalled by the unconstitutional efforts to block funding appropriated and authorized by Congress" and that he relayed those concerns to Musk.

[60][61] Elizabeth Popp Berman, Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan contends that DOGE could be using the payments system to overrule spending already approved by Congress and use this power for ideological control.

[62] James Sample, constitutional law scholar at Hofstra University, questions the legality of DOGE's power centralization: "Musk manifestly answers only to Trump.

[63] Jessica Riedl, a Republican and Manhattan Institute senior fellow on budget, tax, and economic policy, found that DOGE sought to satisfy Trump's culturally conservative base rather than targeting the biggest government spending sources.

Alex Nowrasteh, Cato Institute vice president for social and economic policies, echoed the sentiment, describing the cost cuts as "to the federal government, it's nothing".

[67] James Goldgeier, Professor of International Relations at American University, and Elizabeth N. Saunders, Professor of Political Science at Columbia University, argue that "Musk’s activities present a national security nightmare"[68] Employees from FAA’s National Airspace System Defense Program have been notified of their termination by email from an Outlook address; the program manages long-range detection radars that secure the country’s borders.

[69] Some of the fired FAA employees were working on a system announced by the Air Force in 2023 and partially funded by the Defense Department to protect Hawaii from cruise missiles.

He also added that "Musk's access to Treasury payment systems could give him undue influence over the federal budget at a time when there is a looming debt-ceiling crisis.

Murray stated that Musk was an "unelected, unaccountable billionaire with expansive conflicts of interest, deep ties to China" and accused him of hijacking the nation's financial systems and its ability to pay.

[76] Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute stated that "realistically, there isn't much political willingness to do the tough stuff that [needs] to be done to get the budget under control.

[77] Chief economist Mark Zandi of Moody's said that 30% of the federal budget that is non-discretionary is at the lowest level in modern history as a percentage of GDP, and that even finding $200 billion of savings was highly unlikely.

In September 2024, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of the bank JPMorgan Chase, stated that he supported the idea of creating DOGE to improve government competency.

[82] On January 10, 2025, Republican state governors wrote a joint letter to leaders of Congress expressing "overwhelming support" for DOGE and that they "stand ready to help DOGE—and Congress—be successful".

[90][91][92][93] On February 14, 2025, three men wearing shirts that referenced DOGE attempted to gather information they claimed would be related to alleged wasteful spending and fraud from offices in San Francisco City Hall.

"[96] Employees refused to hand over any information and called the San Francisco Sheriff's Office, but by the time authorities arrived, the unidentified agents had fled the building.

Workers included Hai Binh Nguyen, who lamented the halting of her work at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau where she takes action against unfair business practices.

[108] The subreddit describes itself as "a secure space for United States Federal Government employees to express their opinions, share experiences, and discuss news and information pertinent to their employment.

[110] In an official letter addressed to Susan Wiles, they write: "We will not use our skills as technologists to compromise core government systems, jeopardize Americans' sensitive data, or dismantle critical public service.