Connect with us

Business

Column: Big business musters more lies to smear a Biden nominee because she would do her job

Published

on

Column: Big business musters more lies to smear a Biden nominee because she would do her job

Using excessive after killing off President Biden’s nomination of a pro-labor regulator for a key put up on the Division of Labor, massive enterprise has been sharpening its knives for a famous client advocate nominated to affix the Federal Communications Fee.

The goal this time is Gigi Sohn, whose credentials as a critic of the monopoly energy of massive telecommunications firms and a defender of the general public curiosity are unassailable. So the telecom trade and large enterprise on the whole have chosen to smear her with misrepresentations and outright lies.

Thus far they’ve succeeded in hobbling Sohn’s progress towards affirmation. That’s positioned a complete raft of telecom reforms on maintain, as a result of with out her affirmation, the FCC is caught with a 2-2 cut up between Republicans and Democrats.

Whereas policymakers have targeted disproportionately on broadband deployment in rural areas of the USA, Individuals who stay in cities additionally face huge challenges to broadband connectivity.

— Gigi Sohn, candidate for Federal Communications Fee

Advertisement

The marketing campaign towards Sohn has falsely painted her as a foe of variety in telecommunications and an advocate of suppressing conservative viewpoints.

The reality is that Sohn has lengthy been a supporter of variety — demographically and ideologically — in reality, the conservative info retailers Newsmax and One America Information Community have issued endorsements of Sohn.

Advertisement

Newsmax commentator Bradley Blakeman wrote on its web site in November that though he and Sohn maintain diametrically opposing political beliefs, “I belief Gigi to get it proper in relation to defending my freedom of speech.”

Across the similar time, One America President Charles Herring urged on OANN’s web site that Sohn be confirmed, writing that Sohn “believes within the First Modification and some great benefits of a robust and open media for the good thing about our democracy.”

(Herring’s endorsement evidently brought on some consternation inside OANN — his father, Robert Herring Sr., the community’s founder, went on its newscast to disavow his son’s endorsement, which appears to have been scrubbed from the web site. OANN now identifies Sohn as an “enemy of the free press.”)

Sohn’s affirmation has been stalled since October. It’s now on the verge of turning into swamped by midterm election politics, when nobody on Capitol Hill will be predisposed to take a stand on something with even the faintest aroma of controversy.

As a result of no motion was taken on Sohn’s nomination in 2021, President Biden needed to resubmit her title this 12 months. She has already undergone two separate Senate affirmation hearings.

Advertisement

This gained’t be the primary time that massive enterprise has taken purpose towards a Biden nominee over fears that the nominee will truly do the job of regulatory oversight that she or he has been nominated for.

Amazon and Fb took purpose at Lina Khan, Biden’s appointee as chair of the Federal Commerce Fee, arguing that she ought to recuse herself from FTC circumstances towards these firms as a result of she had been crucial of them previously.

In essence, the businesses had been afraid that Khan’s information of their operations and insurance policies, developed by means of painstaking examine and thru official investigations on Capitol Hill, and relentlessly voiced publicly, would make her too efficient at driving herd on massive tech. (She hasn’t recused.)

Final month, David Weil withdrew as a candidate to go the wage and hour division on the Division of Labor, the place he had served through the Obama administration. Weil’s withdrawal adopted a punishing marketing campaign by enterprise pursuits to color his pro-labor views as radical.

The enterprise lobbies succeeded in scaring off three key Democratic votes within the Senate, dooming Weil’s affirmation.

Advertisement

Now they’re after Sohn, 60. Like Khan and Weil, she’s beautifully certified for the put up for which she’s been nominated. She was a high aide to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler through the Obama administration, when the company took a distinctly pro-consumer stance.

Subsequently she co-founded and led Public Information, a telecommunications client advocacy group. She’s held fellowships at USC and an adjunct professorship at Georgetown and is extensively revered all alongside the ideological spectrum.

However to massive enterprise, as a doubtlessly efficient regulator, she merely gained’t do.

Over the past couple of months, the enterprise group has stepped up its opposition, with the evident aim of turning centrist Democrats towards her, which might kill her possibilities. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce introduced its opposition on March 2, for instance.

Getting into the lists extra not too long ago is the One Nation Challenge, a creation of former Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, which on April 18 introduced a $250,000 promoting marketing campaign designed to color Sohn as an enemy of rural broadband, a fabricated and absurd cost.

Advertisement

One Nation has hyperlinks to the telecom trade by way of the lobbying agency Forbes-Tate, whose companions helped Heitkamp arrange the group’s web site and supplied different providers, in response to the Intercept. Amongst Forbes-Tate’s purchasers have been Verizon, Frontier Communications, the wi-fi trade lobbying group CTIA and the Web and Tv Assn., or NCTA.

One Nation’s marketing campaign is rolling out in six states, together with Arizona and West Virginia — a transparent sign that it’s geared toward Democratic Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the cabal that sank the Weil nomination.

Let’s look at One Nation’s declare that Sohn has opposed the rollout of broadband web entry to rural communities. One Nation offers two nuggets of proof to help this assertion. Each are deceptive to the purpose of fabrication.

The primary is a single phrase lifted out of context from Sohn’s Jan. 29, 2020, testimony to the Home Committee on Power and Commerce: There she acknowledged, in response to One Nation, “policymakers have targeted disproportionately on broadband deployment in rural areas of the USA.”

Sohn did say that. However that’s solely a partial quote. In context, she was saying that by focusing mainly on rural broadband, policymakers had been ignoring the parallel drawback of lack of entry to the web amongst poor city dwellers. Right here’s the total quote:

Advertisement

“Whereas policymakers have targeted disproportionately on broadband deployment in rural areas of the USA, Individuals who stay in cities additionally face huge challenges to broadband connectivity.”

Within the very subsequent sentence (not quoted by One Nation), Sohn cited analysis displaying that “the nation’s broadband adoption drawback is 3 times larger in city areas than rural.”

In different phrases, she was advocating for a federal-level effort to carry broadband to all underprivileged communities, not simply rural — and saying in impact that web suppliers had been getting a move on fixing the broader drawback.

The second nugget cited by One Nation is a press release by Sohn that FCC insurance policies have “made it very easy” for rural broadband firms “to mainly suck on the authorities teat to the tune of tens of billions of {dollars}.”

The inference supplied by One Nation is that Sohn opposes funding rural broadband. However that’s precisely the other of what she was saying.

Advertisement

Sohn made the comment throughout a neighborhood Maryland webcast on June 25, 2020. (One Nation supplied me with a hyperlink to the Fb Reside recording of the occasion, during which the change in query happens on the 17-minute mark.)

However as with One Nation’s selective quoting from Sohn’s January 2020 testimony, right here, too, the lobbying group has twisted her phrases to make them seem to imply be precisely the other of what she stated.

As in her earlier testimony, Sohn’s goal within the webcast was the Trump-era FCC, which was nothing however a cat’s-paw for the telecommunications trade. She pointed to the Republican-dominated ideology of that FCC, which she described as “deregulation needs to be the main focus of the company, making trade comfortable, and that one way or the other the free market will clear up all of our issues.”

The harvest of that method, as she identified, was that greater than 100 million Individuals are left with out broadband web entry “at a time when, in the event you don’t have it, you’re actually screwed — you may’t do your schoolwork … you may’t telework, you may’t join with household or pals.”

At that second within the pandemic, she added, lack of broadband entry was a public well being hazard as a result of “in the event you don’t have the web to do these issues, you’re going outdoors to do these issues.”

Advertisement

Sohn argued that to carry broadband successfully to poor communities, whether or not rural or city, these shoppers wanted help to afford it — authorities needed to ensure that “individuals who can’t afford broadband entry get it, and that colleges and libraries in poor areas ought to be capable to additionally get broadband and be capable to make that broadband accessible to the poor of us of their communities.”

The Trump FCC, nevertheless, “loves giving billions and tens of billions of {dollars} to rural broadband firms to construct networks out in rural America,” she stated.

“These networks have to be constructed,” she stated, however the FCC leaders “don’t like giving cash to poor folks or poor colleges and libraries… They’ve made it as troublesome as attainable to offer out the poor folks’s cash … and made it very easy for rural broadband firms, which are usually monopolies, to mainly suck on the authorities teat to the tune of tens of billions of {dollars}.”

So let’s be clear. Sohn was saying that given the selection between offering low-income residents with the means to amass broadband entry and offering wealthy broadband firms with billions of {dollars} in subsidies, the Trump FCC voted to fatten the businesses and did nothing to assist their clients truly purchase the providers they want.

One Nation ignored Sohn’s commentary that the FCC had “made it as troublesome as attainable” for low-income rural Individuals to afford broadband service and distorted her phrases so she appeared to be attacking rural broadband on the whole. To place it one other approach, One Nation flat-out lied.

Advertisement

Heitkamp calls Sohn’s view of rural broadband “deeply cynical.” The reality is that it’s Heitkamp who’s the cynical participant right here.

As Sohn advised Republican senators who questioned her in regards to the “authorities teat” line, her place has lengthy been that the FCC had dropped the ball on overseeing rural broadband rollout.

She urged that the company “interact in additional due diligence in figuring out whether or not candidates for presidency funding had the technical, operational and monetary skill to maintain their guarantees … to conduct persevering with and in-person oversight to make sure that those that have obtained funding to construct broadband networks are certainly constructing these promised networks; and … to carry accountable those that haven’t met their promise to construct networks.”

Like One Nation, the Chamber can be attacking Sohn with thick-sliced baloney. In its screed towards Sohn revealed on March 2, the Chamber hauled out an outdated mythology in regards to the Obama FCC’s determination to manage broadband service as a public utility in 2015 produced a decline in personal sector broadband funding — within the Chamber’s phrases, “for the primary time outdoors a nationwide financial slowdown.”

The regulatory change was endorsed by Sohn, and the Chamber’s implication is that inserting her on the FCC will return regulation to that normal.

Advertisement

The Chamber cites statistics from USTelecom, the trade’s lobbying arm. Sadly for the Chamber, USTelecom’s personal figures don’t make that case.

It’s true that total broadband funding declined from 2015 to 2016 — by about $2.7 billion, or about 3.5%, to $74.8 billion. But it surely’s incorrect to say there wasn’t a nationwide financial slowdown that 12 months. There was: U.S. financial progress slowed in that timeframe to 1.7% from 3.08% in 2016.

As I reported in 2017, Comcast NBCUniversal, the largest broadband firm, spent $7.6 billion on “cable community infrastructure” in 2016 up about 8% from $7 billion spent in 2015. AT&T recorded $21.5 billion in capital expenditures in 2016, 12% larger than the $19.2 billion it spent in 2015.

In different phrases, key broadband firms had been elevating broadband funding vigorously, regardless of what the Chamber says. By the best way, broadband funding slumped from 2018 to 2019, whereas Trump’s rollback of telecom regulation was in full cry, by much more in greenback phrases than in 2015-2016. It’s a risky pattern line, and any particular curiosity group that tries to make use of it to make a declare in regards to the financial ills of higher regulation is blowing smoke.

However that will not matter to a Congress that may be so simply hypnotized by lies purveyed by particular pursuits. Gigi Sohn’s nomination to the FCC is hanging by a thread because of political deceit. That’s the very best signal but that she should be confirmed, and urgently.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

How Poshmark Is Trying to Make Resale Work Again

Published

on

How Poshmark Is Trying to Make Resale Work Again

Lauren Eager got into thrifting in high school. It was a way to find cheap, interesting clothes while not contributing to the wastefulness of fast fashion.

In 2015, in her first year of college, she downloaded the app for Poshmark, a kind of Instagram-meets-eBay resale platform. Soon, she was selling as well as buying clothes.

This was the golden age of online reselling. In addition to Poshmark, companies like ThredUp and Depop had sprung up, giving a second life to old clothes. In 2016, Facebook debuted Marketplace. Even Goodwill got into the action, starting a snazzy website.

The platforms tapped into two consumer trends: buying stuff online and the never-gets-old delight of snagging a gently used item for a fraction of the original cost. During the Covid-19 pandemic, as people cleaned out their closets, enthusiasm for reselling intensified. It was so strong that Poshmark decided to go public. On the day of its initial public offering in January 2021, the company’s market value peaked at $7.4 billion, roughly the same as PVH’s, the company that owns Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, at the time.

Then, the business of old clothes started to fray.

Advertisement

Using the Poshmark app, Ms. Eager and others said, started to feel like trying to find something in a messy closet. The app was cluttered with features that did not work or that she did not use, and it felt “spammy,” she said, sending too many push notifications.

Many platforms found selling used items hard to scale. Now, online resellers are trying to recalibrate. Last year, ThredUp decided to exit Europe and focus on selling in the United States. Trove, a company that helps brands like Canada Goose and Steve Madden resell their goods, purchased a competitor, Recurate. The RealReal, a luxury consignor, appointed a new chief executive as the company tried to improve profitability.

Poshmark is undergoing perhaps the biggest reinvention. In 2023, Naver, South Korea’s biggest search engine as well as an online marketplace, bought the company in a deal valued at $1.6 billion, less than half its IPO price.

Something of a mash-up of Google and Amazon, Naver is betting it can rebuild Poshmark, which has 130 million active users, with the same technology that made Naver dominant in its own country.

It may also help breathe new life into the resale market. Analysts think the resale fashion market still has room to grow in the United States, with revenue expected to increase 26 percent to $36.3 billion by 2028, according to the retail consultancy firm Coresight Research.

Advertisement

New legislation in California could help. The law, passed last year, requires brands and retailers that operate in the state and generate at least $1 million to set up a “producer responsibility organization” to collect and then reuse, repair or recycle its products. Resale platforms like ThredUp and Poshmark could be in a position to help brands carry out that mandate.

At the moment, though, Naver’s focus for Poshmark is more basic: Make it a better place to sell and shop. The company has the “operating know-how” to do that, said Philip Lee, a founder of the media outlet The Pickool, which covers both South Korean and U.S. tech companies.

“They’re trying to renovate Poshmark and then expand the market share,” he said.

Poshmark, which is based in Redwood City, Calif., was founded in 2011 by Manish Chandra, an entrepreneur and former tech executive, and three others. In trying to expand, Poshmark faced a problem common to resellers: Capturing the excitement of the secondhand-shopping treasure hunt while not frustrating buyers with an endless scroll. The company knew it needed better search, as well as interactive elements that gave people more reasons to come beyond paying $19 for a J. Crew sweater.

For its part, Naver was looking for ways to push beyond South Korea, where its commerce and search businesses were already mature. The growing online resale market in the United States presented an opportunity, and also gave the company access to the largest consumer market in the world.

Advertisement

Commerce is a big growth engine for us,” Namsun Kim, Naver’s chief financial officer, said. And the peer-to-peer sector, where users sell to one another, was still in its infancy, with room to expand. But, Mr. Kim added, “it’s a more challenging segment, and that’s why it’s harder for a lot of the larger players to enter.”

There are two common business models for resale: peer-to-peer and consignment. With consignment, a platform collects and redistributes physical goods. Poshmark uses the peer-to-peer model, which relies on scores of people — many of them novices — haggling over prices and then mailing items to one another. This decentralization can be a headache for brands, which like to maintain a certain level of control of their products. And platforms like Poshmark must make buyers comfortable with trusting the sellers on their site.

Before the Naver purchase, it was difficult to push through needed technological changes, said Vanessa Wong, the vice president of product at Poshmark.

“I would always talk to my engineers and ask, ‘What if we do this or do that?’ They’re like, ‘That’s hard. The effort’s really high,’” Ms. Wong said.

Naver’s purchase offered both the investment and the expertise to pull off the changes. Founded in 1999, the company is everywhere in South Korea.

Advertisement

“We are not just a simple search technology or A.I. service,” said Soo-yeon Choi, the chief executive of Naver, whose headquarters are near Seoul. The company, she said, “alleviates the frustrations of people, which is what is needed to help growth.”

Search built Naver “into the massive power that they are in Korea,” said Mr. Chandra, who stayed on as chief executive after Naver’s purchase. It was the top priority when the company bought Poshmark.

Several new elements for users and sellers have been introduced. With a tool called Posh Lens, users can take a photo of an item and, using Naver’s machine-learning technology, the site populates listings that are the same or similar to the shoe or tank top that they’re searching for. A paid ad feature for sellers called “Promoted Closet,” pushes listings higher on customer feeds.

Poshmark also introduced live shows, some of which are themed, to draw in the TikTok generation and increase engagement. One party auctioned off clothing previously worn by South Korean celebrities, a connection that was made with the help of Naver.

Still, the resale market is going through growing pains and has not quite found its footing since the height of the pandemic. It’s not clear whether the changes taking place at Poshmark will be enough. In May, Mr. Kim, Naver’s finance chief, said in an earnings call that Poshmark’s profitability was improving, but by November, the company was cautioning that growth had slowed because of weakness in the peer-to-peer resale market in North America.

Advertisement

The company has already done some backpedaling on unpopular decisions.

In October, Poshmark introduced a new fee structure, which increased costs for buyers. Sellers, fearing that higher costs would make consumers bolt, revolted. Within weeks, the company scrapped the new fee structure.

And there are still user headaches: tags and keywords that help users find what they’re looking for can be miscategorized. Sellers sometimes tag their products incorrectly to get more eyeballs on their less popular products. (Hard-to-offload Amazon leggings, for example, may be listed as Free People apparel.)

The company is beta testing changes with its frequent sellers — people like Alex Mahl, who sells thousands of dollars in apparel on the site each year. And within dedicated Facebook groups related to Poshmark, there’s a lot of chatter about the changes that sellers and buyers would still like to see.

“The only way for it to do well is there’s going to be constant changes,” Ms. Mahl said about the tweaks on Poshmark. “If you were just on an app that never changed — one, it would be boring, and two, the opportunity to just do better wouldn’t be there.”

Advertisement

One recent morning, Ms. Eager, the seller who joined Poshmark back in college, was pleasantly surprised to find that the app had some new features she actually liked. She snapped a photo of her Aerie gray tank top with Posh Lens. Within seconds, the app populated listings of similar products. It was so much better than conjuring up the adjectives needed to describe it.

“Love it,” Ms. Eager exclaimed.

Continue Reading

Business

When receipts of home renovations are lost, is the tax break gone too?

Published

on

When receipts of home renovations are lost, is the tax break gone too?

Dear Liz: I have sold my family home recently after almost 50 years. I had done lots of improvements throughout those years. Due to a fire 15 years ago, all the documentation for these improvements has been destroyed. How do I document the improvements for the capital gains tax calculation?

Answer: As you probably know, you can exclude $250,000 of capital gains from the sale of a principal residence as long as you own and live in the home at least two of the previous five years. The exclusion is $500,000 for a couple.

Once upon a time, that meant few homeowners had to worry about capital gains taxes on the sale of their home. But the exclusion amounts haven’t changed since they were created in 1997, even as home values have soared. Qualifying home improvements can be used to increase your tax basis in the home and thus decrease your tax bill, but the IRS probably will demand proof of those changes should you be audited.

You could ask any contractors you used who are still in business if they will provide written verification of the work they performed, suggests Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. You also could check your home’s history with your property tax assessor to see if its assessment was adjusted to reflect any of the improvements.

Advertisement

At a minimum, prepare a list from memory of the improvements you made, including the year and the approximate cost. If you don’t have pictures of the house reflecting the changes, perhaps friends and relatives might. This won’t be the best evidence, Luscombe concedes, but it might get the IRS to accept at least some increase in your tax basis.

If you’re a widow or widower, there’s another tax break you should know about. At least part of your home would have gotten a step-up in tax basis if you were married and your co-owner spouse died. In most states, the half owned by the deceased spouse would get a new tax basis reflecting the home’s current market value. In community property states such as California, both halves of the house get this step-up. A tax pro can provide more details.

Other homeowners should take note of the importance of keeping good digital records. While documents may not be lost in a fire, they may be misplaced, accidentally discarded or (in the case of receipts) so faded they’re illegible. To make sure documents are available when you need them, consider scanning or taking photographs of your records and keeping multiple copies, such as one set in your computer and another in a secure cloud account.

When an employee is misclassified as contractor

Dear Liz: A parent recently wrote to you about a son who was being paid as a contractor. I know someone else who got a job that did not “take out taxes from his paycheck.” Such workers believe they are pocketing more money, but unfortunately, too many do not know about the nature of withholding. They only learn if they choose to file for their expected refund, but instead discover an exorbitant tax liability that a paycheck-to-paycheck worker cannot pay.

The sad fact is that many of these employers improperly classify their workers, who are truly employees, as independent contractors! And they do this to avoid paying their own portion of Social Security and unemployment taxes and also workers compensation insurance.

Advertisement

If workers believe that they have been misclassified (the IRS website provides all criteria), they can file IRS Form SS-8 and Form 8919, which will allow them to pay only their allocated half of their Social Security taxes. Hopefully the IRS will then contact these employers to correct their wrong classifications. And finally, it should be a law that, when hired, all true independent contractors should be given a clear form (not fine print on their employment agreements) that informs them of their status and the need to make estimated tax payments.

Answer: A big factor in determining whether a worker is an employee or contractor is control. Who controls what the worker does and how the worker does the job? The more control that’s in the employer’s hands, the more likely the worker is an employee.

However, the IRS notes that there are no hard and fast rules and that “factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.”

The form you mentioned, IRS Form SS-8, also can be filed by any employer unsure if a worker is properly classified.

Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner®, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the “Contact” form at asklizweston.com.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Inside Elon Musk’s Plan for DOGE to Slash Government Costs

Published

on

Inside Elon Musk’s Plan for DOGE to Slash Government Costs

An unpaid group of billionaires, tech executives and some disciples of Peter Thiel, a powerful Republican donor, are preparing to take up unofficial positions in the U.S. government in the name of cost-cutting.

As President-elect Donald J. Trump’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency girds for battle against “wasteful” spending, it is preparing to dispatch individuals with ties to its co-leaders, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, to agencies across the federal government.

After Inauguration Day, the group of Silicon Valley-inflected, wide-eyed recruits will be deployed to Washington’s alphabet soup of agencies. The goal is for most major agencies to eventually have two DOGE representatives as they seek to cut costs like Mr. Musk did at X, his social media platform.

This story is based on interviews with roughly a dozen people who have insight into DOGE’s operations. They spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

On the eve of Mr. Trump’s presidency, the structure of DOGE is still amorphous and closely held. People involved in the operation say that secrecy and avoiding leaks is paramount, and much of its communication is conducted on Signal, the encrypted messaging app.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has said the effort would drive “drastic change,” and that the entity would provide outside advice on how to cut wasteful spending. DOGE itself will have no power to cut spending — that authority rests with Congress. Instead, it is expected to provide recommendations for programs and other areas to cut.

But parts of the operation are becoming clear: Many of the executives involved are expecting to do six-month voluntary stints inside the federal government before returning to their high-paying jobs. Mr. Musk has said they will not be paid — a nonstarter for some originally interested tech executives — and have been asked by him to work 80-hour weeks. Some, including possibly Mr. Musk, will be so-called special government employees, a specific category of temporary workers who can only work for the federal government for 130 days or less in a 365-day period.

The representatives will largely be stationed inside federal agencies. After some consideration by top officials, DOGE itself is now unlikely to incorporate as an organized outside entity or nonprofit. Instead, it is likely to exist as more of a brand for an interlinked group of aspirational leaders who are on joint group chats and share a loyalty to Mr. Musk or Mr. Ramaswamy.

“The cynics among us will say, ‘Oh, it’s naïve billionaires stepping into the fray.’ But the other side will say this is a service to the nation that we saw more typically around the founding of the nation,” said Trevor Traina, an entrepreneur who worked in the first Trump administration with associates who have considered joining DOGE.

“The friends I know have huge lives,” Mr. Traina said, “and they’re agreeing to work for free for six months, and leave their families and roll up their sleeves in an attempt to really turn things around. You can view it either way.”

Advertisement

DOGE leaders have told others that the minority of people not detailed to agencies would be housed within the Executive Office of the President at the U.S. Digital Service, which was created in 2014 by former President Barack Obama to “change our government’s approach to technology.”

DOGE is also expected to have an office in the Office of Management and Budget, and officials have also considered forming a think tank outside the government in the future.

Mr. Musk’s friends have been intimately involved in choosing people who are set to be deployed to various agencies. Those who have conducted interviews for DOGE include the Silicon Valley investors Marc Andreessen, Shaun Maguire, Baris Akis and others who have a personal connection to Mr. Musk. Some who have received the Thiel Fellowship, a prestigious grant funded by Mr. Thiel given to those who promise to skip or drop out of college to become entrepreneurs, are involved with programming and operations for DOGE. Brokering an introduction to Mr. Musk or Mr. Ramaswamy, or their inner circles, has been a key way for leaders to be picked for deployment.

That is how the co-founder of Loom, Vinay Hiremath, said he became involved in DOGE in a rare public statement from someone who worked with the entity. In a post this month on his personal blog, Mr. Hiremath described the work that DOGE employees have been doing before he decided against moving to Washington to join the entity.

“After 8 calls with people who all talked fast and sounded very smart, I was added to a number of Signal groups and immediately put to work,” he wrote. “The next 4 weeks of my life consisted of 100s of calls recruiting the smartest people I’ve ever talked to, working on various projects I’m definitely not able to talk about, and learning how completely dysfunctional the government was. It was a blast.”

Advertisement

These recruits are assigned to specific agencies where they are thought to have expertise. Some other DOGE enrollees have come to the attention of Mr. Musk and Mr. Ramaswamy through X. In recent weeks, DOGE’s account on X has posted requests to recruit a “very small number” of full-time salaried positions for engineers and back-office functions like human resources.

The DOGE team, including those paid engineers, is largely working out of a glass building in SpaceX’s downtown office located a few blocks from the White House. Some people close to Mr. Ramaswamy and Mr. Musk hope that these DOGE engineers can use artificial intelligence to find cost-cutting opportunities.

The broader effort is being run by two people with starkly different backgrounds: One is Brad Smith, a health care entrepreneur and former top health official in Mr. Trump’s first White House who is close with Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law. Mr. Smith has effectively been running DOGE during the transition period, with a particular focus on recruiting, especially for the workers who will be embedded at the agencies.

Mr. Smith has been working closely with Steve Davis, a collaborator of Mr. Musk’s for two decades who is widely seen as working as Mr. Musk’s proxy on all things. Mr. Davis has joined Mr. Musk as he calls experts with questions about the federal budget, for instance.

Other people involved include Matt Luby, Mr. Ramaswamy’s chief of staff and childhood friend; Joanna Wischer, a Trump campaign official; and Rachel Riley, a McKinsey partner who works closely with Mr. Smith.

Advertisement

Mr. Musk’s personal counsel — Chris Gober — and Mr. Ramaswamy’s personal lawyer — Steve Roberts — have been exploring various legal issues regarding the structure of DOGE. James Burnham, a former Justice Department official, is also helping DOGE with legal matters. Bill McGinley, Mr. Trump’s initial pick for White House counsel who was instead named as legal counsel for DOGE, has played a more minimal role.

“DOGE will be a cornerstone of the new administration, helping President Trump deliver his vision of a new golden era,” said James Fishback, the founder of Azoria, an investment firm, and confidant of Mr. Ramaswamy who will be providing outside advice for DOGE.

Despite all this firepower, many budget experts have been deeply skeptical about the effort and its cost-cutting ambitions. Mr. Musk initially said the effort could result in “at least $2 trillion” in cuts from the $6.75 trillion federal budget. But budget experts say that goal would be difficult to achieve without slashing popular programs like Social Security and Medicare, which Mr. Trump has promised not to cut.

Both Mr. Musk and Mr. Ramaswamy have also recast what success might mean. Mr. Ramaswamy emphasized DOGE-led deregulation on X last month, saying that removing regulations could stimulate the economy and that “the success of DOGE can’t be measured through deficit reduction alone.”

And in an interview last week with Mark Penn, the chairman and chief executive of Stagwell, a marketing company, Mr. Musk downplayed the total potential savings.

Advertisement

“We’ll try for $2 trillion — I think that’s like the best-case outcome,” Mr. Musk said. “You kind of have to have some overage. I think if we try for two trillion, we’ve got a good shot at getting one.”

Continue Reading

Trending