At issue: Is Elon Musk’s political and economic philosophy at odds with his new found responsibility in working with Donald Trump?

Elon Musk has received approximately $5.7 billion in government loans, incentives, and subsidies across his enterprises—Tesla, SolarCity, and SpaceX. By any measure, this stands as one of the U.S. government’s most successful investments in a single entrepreneur. The ripple effects, including job creation and economic growth, are vast and difficult to quantify, further cementing Musk’s legacy as a transformative figure in modern industry.

However, it’s worth asking: without this government backing—bestowed by a sovereign nation with a triple-A credit rating—would Musk have been able to attract the private investment necessary to propel his companies to their current heights? This is a question best left to economic historians.

Fast forward to today, Musk, alongside his ideological ally Vivek Ramaswamy, is gearing up for what could be described as a “government-busting tour.” Borrowing from the famed tax crusader Grover Norquist, their goal is to shrink the government “small enough to drown it in a bathtub.” Musk, a vocal proponent of right-wing libertarian values that decry government intervention in the economy, now finds himself accused of blatant hypocrisy: championing a smaller government after benefiting immensely from its largesse.

Adding to the irony, Musk will be advising President Donald Trump, who will take office in January 2025, as the leader of a new initiative called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The goal? Slashing federal agencies. But this so-called department, which would require congressional approval to exist, is unlikely to materialize. The contradiction is glaring: creating a new department to dismantle others, further underscoring the paradoxes inherent in Musk’s public philosophy.

At its core, Musk’s pivot to government criticism feels like a philosophical game of five-card monte, played on the largest stage imaginable. He bites the hand that helped instill confidence in his investors while tearing down the very system that could support future entrepreneurs. Or does he? Perhaps Musk’s vision isn’t to eliminate government support altogether but to reserve it for a select class of oligarchs, perpetuating a modern-day Gilded Age where only the wealthy and well-connected thrive.

For all his success, Musk seems to be walking a fine line: a benefactor of public resources who now seeks to reshape—or dismantle—the government to align with his vision. The question remains: Will his contradictions catch up with him, or will history regard him as both a product and a critic of the system he once relied on? Or, it begs the moral question, is this just a case of all for me, not for you. It’s something that we are certain does not keep a man who is worth $350 billion dollars up at night.