Musk, who operated as the de facto head of Doge, described the U.S. government as an inefficient system requiring technological overhaul.

In discussions with lawmakers including Ted Cruz, he argued that fragmented databases and outdated infrastructure were at the root of bureaucratic inefficiencies.

According to the executive mandate, Doge’s objective was to improve productivity by modernising federal technology and software systems.The initiative drew on Musk’s corporate playbook, combining aggressive restructuring with a technology-first approach.

Teams of coders and mid-level managers, many drawn from Musk’s companies, were deployed to digitise records, audit agency systems and identify redundancies. Internal dashboards tracked cost-cutting measures in real time, reflecting a management style that treated governance as an optimisable system.

At the core of Doge was a plan to unify federal data into a single interoperable platform. The project aimed to consolidate information ranging from taxpayer records to employment data into a central repository accessible across government departments.

Such integration has been a long-standing objective of U.S. administrations, particularly since security reforms introduced after the September 11 attacks. However, policy experts said Doge’s scale and scope were unprecedented, raising concerns about privacy and institutional safeguards.

Critics warned that centralised access to sensitive data including names, addresses, social security numbers and financial records could increase the risk of misuse or overreach.

They argued that combining multiple databases into a single system may enhance efficiency but also creates a concentration of informational power within the state.Media researcher Eryk Salvaggio said the initiative attempted to automate not only administrative processes but also aspects of democratic governance.

By framing inefficiencies as “bad data,” Doge treated policy challenges as technical problems that could be resolved through correction or removal of anomalies.

Musk’s approach to Doge reflected a broader worldview shaped by technology and simulation theory. He frequently described governance challenges in computational terms, referring to inefficiencies as “bugs” and policy reform as “reprogramming.”

Drawing on themes from science fiction, including the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Musk likened Doge’s mission to rewriting the rules of an unwinnable system.This framework extended into his public commentary on policy issues, particularly immigration and federal spending.

Musk argued that inefficiencies in government systems were linked to irregularities in data, including fraudulent records and undocumented individuals. However, independent analyses and official data indicated that many of these claims including assertions about widespread voter fraud were not supported by evidence.

Studies by research institutions and election authorities have consistently shown that non-citizen voting is extremely rare in U.S. elections. Similarly, asylum procedures require verification and are subject to legal review, contradicting claims that entry into the system occurs without scrutiny.

Despite these discrepancies, Doge’s operational model continued to emphasise cost reduction and system optimisation. Musk’s management philosophy assumed that expenditures could be reassessed from a “zero base,” treating all spending as potentially unnecessary unless justified through data-driven analysis.

Efforts to apply private-sector efficiency models to public institutions encountered structural constraints. Government programmes, particularly those related to social welfare, operate within legal and political frameworks that limit rapid restructuring.

Public backlash intensified as concerns grew over potential cuts to benefits such as social security and healthcare programmes. Federal employees also resisted changes that they said undermined institutional stability and due process.

Analysts noted that while companies can restructure workforces quickly, public institutions must balance efficiency with accountability and service delivery. The complexity of government functions including obligations to vulnerable populations made it difficult to implement sweeping changes without political and social consequences.

Doge’s emphasis on rapid cost-cutting and centralised decision-making further contributed to tensions within agencies. Critics argued that the initiative prioritised speed over consultation, reducing opportunities for stakeholder input and oversight

.Although Doge lost momentum following Musk’s departure from Washington, elements of its approach continued to shape policy discussions. Data integration and digital transformation remained priorities for federal agencies, even as debates over privacy and governance intensified.

The initiative also underscored the growing role of private technology firms in public administration. In July 2025, Musk’s artificial intelligence company secured a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense to provide AI tools for government use, reflecting ongoing collaboration between the public sector and technology providers.

Observers say Doge’s most lasting impact may lie in its demonstration of how digital infrastructure can reshape governance. The push toward integrated systems and data-driven policymaking continued into 2026, influencing both administrative strategy and political debate.

At the same time, concerns about surveillance and accountability persisted. The expansion of data-sharing frameworks raised questions about oversight mechanisms and the protection of civil liberties in an increasingly digitised state.

While Musk’s attempt to apply a technology-centric model to government encountered resistance, analysts say it highlighted broader tensions between efficiency, transparency and democratic governance.

The experience of Doge is likely to inform future efforts to modernise public institutions, as policymakers weigh the benefits of innovation against the risks of centralisation.

The discussions inside the White House reflect competing priorities among economic, political and national security advisers as the United States and Israel continue military operations targeting Iran.

Officials involved in the internal discussions said there is no unified view on the desired end point of the conflict, prompting debate among Trump’s advisers over how long military pressure should be maintained.

Some national security hawks are urging the administration to sustain operations against Iran, arguing that continued pressure could weaken the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities and regional influence.

Other advisers are advocating a more limited campaign that would allow the president to declare victory quickly while avoiding a prolonged conflict that could expand across the region.Those differing views have contributed to fluctuations in Trump’s public remarks about the war’s trajectory and possible outcomes.

Members of the administration’s economic team have warned that the conflict could have domestic political consequences if energy prices rise significantly.

The war has already unsettled global energy markets, raising concerns within the administration about the potential for higher gasoline prices in the United States.

Officials familiar with the discussions said economic advisers have cautioned that sustained disruptions to oil supply routes in the Middle East could place additional pressure on consumers and financial markets.

Political advisers close to Trump have argued for a limited and swift operation, according to people familiar with the deliberations. They contend that a shorter campaign could reduce economic fallout while allowing the president to frame the military action as a strategic success.

The competing recommendations have produced what one person close to the discussions described as a complex internal debate over how the administration should define victory and manage the conflict’s political and economic implications.

As the war continues, the policy discussions within the White House are expected to remain fluid as officials monitor developments across the Middle East and assess the broader impact of the confrontation.

The estimate, presented to members of Congress on Tuesday, represents only a partial accounting of the costs incurred since the military campaign began on Feb. 28 with coordinated U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets.

The White House has not publicly released an overall assessment of the war’s cost or provided a timeline for how long the conflict might continue.

Several congressional aides said the administration is expected to submit a request to lawmakers for additional war funding in the coming weeks. Estimates discussed among officials suggest the request could reach about $50 billion, though some aides cautioned that figure may underestimate the eventual cost.

Members of Congress will likely be required to approve any additional funding package as the Pentagon seeks resources to sustain operations and replenish weapons stocks used during the campaign.

Administration officials told lawmakers that roughly $5.6 billion worth of munitions were expended during the first two days of strikes alone, underscoring the intensity of the opening phase of the campaign.

Some lawmakers have voiced concern that the pace of weapons use could strain U.S. military inventories at a time when defense manufacturers are already working to expand production capacity to meet global demand.

Last week, Trump met with executives from seven defense contractors as the Pentagon explored ways to accelerate replenishment of critical weapons systems and other military supplies.

Democratic lawmakers have called for public testimony under oath from administration officials to clarify the strategy and objectives of the war, including its expected duration and Washington’s plans for Iran once active combat operations end.

Speaking during a visit to Kentucky on Wednesday, Trump said “we won” the war but indicated that U.S. forces would remain engaged until operations were completed.

The conflict has expanded beyond Iran’s borders into Lebanon and has disrupted global energy markets and maritime transport routes. Around 2,000 people have been killed so far, most of them in Iran and Lebanon, according to figures cited in the briefing.

The pair were appointed co-executors of Epstein’s estate in August 2019, two days before he died in a New York jail while awaiting trial on federal charges related to sex trafficking of minors. As executors, Kahn and Indyke control the financier’s remaining assets and documents, including records that could shed light on Epstein’s financial network and the operations linked to his alleged abuse.

The U.S. House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed both men as part of its investigation into Epstein’s network and financial dealings. Kahn is scheduled to testify on March 11, while Indyke is expected to appear on March 19.

Lawmakers are seeking information about how Epstein’s financial operations were structured and whether associates involved in managing his affairs had knowledge of or insight into the broader activities linked to his criminal case.

Representative Suhas Subramanyam, a member of the committee, told that the two men could provide key insight into Epstein’s financial structure. Victims, he said, had mentioned them as individuals who might have had awareness of aspects of Epstein’s operations

.Kahn and Indyke oversee the estate that was estimated to be worth about $635 million at the time of Epstein’s death, according to figures cited by the law firm Edwards Henderson, which represents several survivors.

Court filings indicate the two men held signatory authority over many accounts connected to Epstein and were involved in the management of companies associated with his financial activities. Documents from litigation in the U.S. Virgin Islands alleged that some entities were used within a broader network linked to Epstein’s trafficking operation.

In 2022, the estate agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands government by paying more than $105 million and transferring proceeds from the sale of one of Epstein’s private islands, including Little St James.

Court filings cited in investigations have alleged that the two men received fees and loans from Epstein and played roles in managing a complex web of financial entities. Some documents also alleged involvement in financial arrangements connected to victims and recruitment networks.Lawyers for both men deny any wrongdoing.

Daniel Weiner, a lawyer for Indyke, that no court has found either Indyke or Kahn to have committed wrongdoing and that neither man has been accused by victims of sexual abuse or of witnessing abuse.

Kahn’s legal representative said his client had cooperated fully with requests from the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the 2019 investigation.

FBI records cited in reports indicate that during a raid on Epstein’s New York residence in July 2019, agents discovered a safe containing valuables and documents. According to the documents, Kahn instructed staff to remove items from the safe after the initial search warrant was executed, later returning the materials to investigators through legal channels.

As executors, Kahn and Indyke have also supplied the House Oversight Committee with thousands of pages of documents and photographs in response to subpoenas. Their legal teams say certain redactions were made to protect the identities of victims.

In a 2–1 decision, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to pause a February 2 order that barred the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from ending Haiti’s TPS designation while legal challenges proceed.TPS is a humanitarian program that allows eligible migrants from countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions to live and work legally in the United States without fear of deportation.

The ruling upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who found that the government’s move to terminate protections for Haitians likely violated established TPS procedures and the equal protection guarantee under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.Circuit Judges Florence Pan and Brad Garcia said Haitians forced to return could face severe dangers in their home country, describing conditions as marked by a “collapsing rule of law” and widespread insecurity. The judges also noted concerns about limited access to essential medical care.

The Department of Homeland Security under outgoing Secretary Kristi Noem has sought to end TPS designations for several countries as part of Trump’s broader immigration enforcement policies. Officials have argued that the program was never intended to function as a long-term legal status and risked becoming a “de facto amnesty.”Government lawyers told the appeals court that the U.S. Supreme Court had previously permitted the administration to terminate TPS for Venezuelan migrants, arguing the precedent justified allowing the Haiti policy change to proceed.But the appellate panel said the circumstances differed significantly, concluding that the potential humanitarian consequences for Haitian migrants warranted maintaining the lower court’s injunction while the case continues.

The gathering, dubbed the “Shield of the Americas,” comes as Washington seeks to deepen ties with governments aligned with Trump’s policies on crime, migration and economic liberalisation. The meeting also takes place just weeks before Trump is expected to hold talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing later this month.The summit occurs against the backdrop of growing Chinese economic engagement in Latin America, where trade between China and the region reached a record $518 billion in 2024, according to data cited by U.S. analysts.

Among the leaders expected to attend are Argentine President Javier Milei, Chile’s president-elect Jose Antonio Kast and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.Several of the participating leaders share policy positions with Trump on crime enforcement, migration control and pro-market economic policies. Analysts say their participation reflects a broader shift toward conservative politics in parts of Latin America.Bukele’s security policies in El Salvador, including a sweeping crackdown on criminal gangs, have drawn criticism from human rights organisations but have also been cited by some regional leaders as a model for tackling organised crime.Many governments attending the summit favour stricter law-and-order approaches to crime and migration, prioritising enforcement measures alongside economic policies that promote private sector investment .

The Trump administration views the summit as part of a broader effort to strengthen Washington’s strategic position in the Western Hemisphere at a time when Beijing has expanded trade, infrastructure investment and lending across Latin America.Ryan Berg, who heads the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote this week that the gathering marks the first time in Trump’s second term that Washington has convened a group of Latin American leaders in this format.The event also gives the administration an opportunity to demonstrate regional leadership while the United States faces geopolitical pressures elsewhere, including tensions in the Middle East following recent U.S. military strikes on Iran.

Trump said earlier this week that Kristi Noem would serve as special envoy for the “Shield of the Americas” initiative. Noem previously served as secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security until Trump removed her from the role amid mounting criticism from members of Congress.Officials say the summit will focus on coordinating policies on regional security, migration management and economic cooperation as Washington attempts to reinforce partnerships in a region increasingly shaped by competition between the United States and China.

Retail fuel prices climbed more than 10% during the week as markets reacted to supply disruptions linked to the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran. The surge presents a potential political challenge for U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration has pledged to lower energy costs and expand domestic oil and gas production.Speaking in an interview with Reuters, Trump dismissed concerns about the increase, saying that “if they rise, they rise.”Prices climb to multi-month highsAccording to data from the American Automobile Association, the national average price of regular gasoline reached $3.32 per gallon on Friday, an 11% increase from a week earlier and the highest level since September 2024.Diesel prices rose even more sharply, climbing 15% over the same period to $4.33 per gallon, their highest level since November 2023.

The United States is the world’s largest oil producer and a significant exporter, but it also imports millions of barrels daily due to its status as the world’s largest oil consumer. Analysts say global disruptions can therefore affect domestic fuel prices even when U.S. production remains strong.Midwest and South feel the impactSome of the steepest increases were reported in the Midwest and southern United States. In Georgia, average gasoline prices rose 40.1 cents per gallon in the past week, according to the fuel tracking website GasBuddy.Andrenna McDaniel, a healthcare insurance worker in South Fulton, Georgia, said the rise came quickly. “They jumped up so quickly,” she said, adding that she has reduced driving to essential trips.Others expressed support for the administration’s actions. Richard Soule, a retired firefighter and U.S. Air Force veteran in Marietta, said he believed the increase was acceptable in light of national security concerns as he filled up his pickup truck.Other states including Indiana and West Virginia recorded weekly increases of more than 40 cents per gallon.Supply concerns drive outlookOil markets have reacted strongly to disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping corridor for crude exports. On Friday, U.S. oil futures settled at $90.90 per barrel, marking the largest single-day increase since April 2020.Patrick De Haan, an analyst at GasBuddy, said gasoline prices could climb further if crude prices continue rising and supply disruptions persist.Denton Cinquegrana, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service, said global demand for U.S. crude has increased as refineries in Asia and Europe seek alternatives to Middle Eastern supplies, tightening domestic fuel markets.

Diesel markets face additional pressure from strong global demand for freight transportation, power generation and heating during an extended winter, combined with limited refining capacity.Higher diesel costs can ripple through the broader economy because the fuel is widely used in shipping, agriculture and manufacturing, raising the cost of transporting goods ranging from food to household products.

The U.S. Department of Justice said Asif Merchant was found guilty of murder-for-hire and attempting to carry out an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries following a trial in the Brooklyn federal court. Prosecutors said the plot involved efforts to recruit individuals in the United States to target prominent political leaders.Alleged retaliation plotFederal prosecutors said Merchant attempted to organize the assassination plan as retaliation for Washington’s 2020 drone strike that killed Soleimani during Trump’s first term in office. Investigators said Merchant tried to recruit people inside the United States to assist in the plan.

According to court filings, the alleged targets included Trump as well as then-President Joe Biden and former U.S. ambassador and Republican presidential contender Nikki Haley during the 2024 election cycle.The Justice Department said the plot was directed by Iranian authorities and linked to Iran’s elite security force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC holds extensive military, intelligence and economic influence within Iran.Defendant’s testimonyMerchant acknowledged during the trial that he had agreed to participate in the plan with members of the Revolutionary Guards but told the court he did so under duress. He testified that he feared for the safety of his family living in Tehran if he refused to cooperate.He said he was not ordered to assassinate a specific individual but claimed his Iranian handler referenced three potential targets during conversations in the Iranian capital.Tehran has previously denied accusations that it orchestrated assassination plots against current or former U.S. officials.Plot disrupted by informantU.S. law enforcement officials said the plan was thwarted before any attack could take place. The Justice Department said a person Merchant contacted in April 2024 to assist with the operation reported the approach to authorities and became a confidential informant.

Authorities subsequently monitored Merchant’s activities before arresting him later in 2024. He pleaded not guilty at the time of his arrest.The trial began last week, days before the United States and Israel launched a major military assault on Iran that has since expanded into one of the region’s largest conflicts in years.Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations has said at least 1,332 Iranian civilians have been killed and thousands wounded in the attacks. Iranian authorities have also reported the deaths of several senior figures, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.The case underscores long-running tensions between Washington and Tehran following the killing of Soleimani, a senior Iranian military commander widely seen as a key architect of Iran’s regional military strategy.