The mainstream media in its collective effort to undermine President Trump and the MAGA mandate has begun referring to Elon Musk as “President Musk” because the Department of Government Efficiency is exposing rampant corruption and reducing the size of our bloated federal government, according to campaign promises.
Thankfully, President Trump, who’s “very comfortable in his skin,” isn’t letting the suggestion that Musk is more powerful than him impact their relationship or his faith in the DOGE, says Mark Levin.
“We have a press that hates Trump, that hates you and me, that hates traditional America, that promotes all the opposite, so it's not a free press; it's a propaganda operation,” he says.
The truth is what Elon Musk is doing via the DOGE is steering the country off the path of bankruptcy.
In a press conference last month, Musk made it clear what the agency is at its core: “Humble tech support.”
“That is almost a literal description of the work that the DOGE team is doing — helping fix the government computer systems,” he explained. “Many of these systems are extremely old; they don't communicate; there are a lot of mistakes in the systems; the software doesn't work.”
“The overall goal here with the DOGE team is to help address the enormous deficit. We simply cannot sustain as a country a $2 trillion deficit. Just the interest on the national debt now exceeds the Defense Department's spending. ... If this continues, the country will become de facto bankrupt,” Musk added, calling the DOGE”s efforts “not an optional thing” but “an essential thing.”
He went on to explain that his and the DOGE’s efforts to quite literally save the country from the brink of economic collapse are being met with constant opposition, including “death threats.”
Regardless, he vowed to prevail, aiming to save the country “$4 billion a day” to meet the DOGE’s goal of $1 trillion in savings by September this year — and to be completely transparent while doing it.
“Just remarkable,” says Levin of the agency’s efforts.
But of course, “Washington doesn’t want to hear it,” he says, likening the DOGE’s task to “[rolling] a boulder up a hill while there’s an avalanche coming down.”
And “the press doesn’t want to hear it,” either. “The media could care less that he gets death threats,” Levin sighs.
To hear more of his commentary, watch the clip above.
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Over the past decade, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives have infiltrated federal agencies. Most expect institutions like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration — rooted in scientific discovery — to resist such woke ideology, yet it too has apparently drifted away from merit-based practices.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump moved swiftly to eliminate DEI from the federal government, issuing an executive order to terminate all such programs. He criticized the Biden administration for embedding "deeply unpopular ... illegal, and radical practices within every agency and office."
'Land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon.'
In response to the executive action, Trump's acting NASA administrator, Janet Petro, distributed a memo to employees announcing that the institution was "taking steps to close all agency DEIA [diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility] offices and end all DEIA-related contracts."
"These programs divided Americans by race, wasted taxpayer dollars, and results in shameful discrimination," Petro wrote. "We are aware of efforts by some in government to disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language."
Petro encouraged employees to report efforts to conceal such initiatives within the agency.
Two top-level NASA whistleblowers spoke to Blaze News about the infiltration of DEI. The scientists asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.
In December 2017, Trump signed the "Space Policy Directive 1, Reinvigorating America's Human Space Exploration Program." The action directed NASA to prioritize returning to the moon.
"Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations," it read.
In 2019, then-NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine announced that the mission would be called Artemis, named after Apollo's mythological twin sister.
NASA described Artemis, powered by its Space Launch System rocket, as "a series of ongoing lunar missions" paving the way to Mars and beyond. Initially, the agency pledged that Artemis would "land the first woman and next man" on the moon, although Trump's directive did not call for this.
Under the Biden administration, NASA updated its mission, vowing to "land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon."
A 2021 internal presentation slide deck, obtained exclusively by Blaze News, revealed NASA's exhaustive marketing plans for Artemis, a DEI-driven mission.
'Elevat[e] Artemis into the luxury fashion world.'
The 99-slide presentation meticulously outlined how the agency could promote its program and build public support. It detailed Artemis' branding and messaging, identified target audiences, highlighted potential marketing obstacles for these groups, and proposed company partnerships.
"The Artemis Brand Playbook" stated that the agency would use "innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before."
"We will collaborate with our commercial and international partners and establish long-term exploration by the end of the decade," it added. "Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap to Mars."
The presentation explained NASA's plan to "establish[] the Artemis brand."
It stated that the mission "must inspire" several audience segments: future supporters, the public, collaborators, and advocates. The list included "BIPOC" — which stands for "black, indigenous, people of color" — individuals, noting that Artemis should "build mass appeal with and get to participate, especially underserved and underrepresented groups."
The presentation outlined "potential roadblocks" NASA might face when marketing its mission to the public, including the "perception that other companies are ahead of NASA" and a feeling among some Americans have that "taxpayer funds should be used elsewhere within and outside of NASA."
As part of Artemis' messaging, the slide deck stated that the agency should highlight stories about its "people, partnerships, technologies, and more," including "how we are selecting the Artemis astronauts" and "how we're creating opportunities for women in space."
A section titled "Creating Stories & Inspiring a Generation" outlined "Artemis' key characters," defining the mission's protagonists and antagonists.
The protagonists in Artemis' story were listed as those directly involved in the mission, such as astronauts and engineers. It also named "first-time entrepreneurs," former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine, Elon Musk, "outside skeptics of NASA," "a mechanic living in Alabama," and "an intern from India."
Artemis' antagonists could be "people who challenge us," "tangible obstacles ... or intangible obstacles;" as well as those who "may pursue a goal contrary to what Artemis stands for" and "have a weakness that can be exploited by the protagonist."
Listed as antagonists were "the unaware public," "skeptics who control budgets," "skeptics in the media," "competing space agencies," "conspiracy theorists," and "dissatisfied NASA employees," to name a few.
'I was told to be seen and not heard.'
The marketing strategy outlined how to weave the listed elements into stories promoting the Artemis mission. It detailed various "plot designs" and "high-level arcs" to structure and "enrich" these narratives.
"Content must engage, inform, inspire, and ensure that Artemis stays relevant and exciting — before and after the moment a man and woman set foot on the Moon," it read.
Though NASA's ambitious marketing strategy omitted execution cost details, the slides assigned each proposed campaign a cost rating from one, the least expensive, to three, the most expensive.
The first campaign, and one of the most pricey, suggested promoting the mission by creating a multimedia series that would be aired on "a prominent video streaming platform." The slide deck also suggested reformatting the series into a podcast.
A featured description of the show read, "Today, we celebrate not just the successful splashdown and recovery of Artemis Orion, but the knowledge that we will put the first woman and first person of color on the Moon. This victory would not have been possible without those who have worked by our side, from small business and aerospace partners to the universities who have made this a scientific milestone."
The marketing program also detailed a potential website where people could "share what their first words would be when stepping onto the Moon's surface." After the mission reached the moon, the website would be updated to allow people "an opportunity to 'become a citizen of the Moon' by receiving a lunar passport and other 'official' documents and assets."
NASA also considered creating a "pop-up roadshow" and "an Airbnb residence" to promote its mission in New York City, Los Angeles, Paris, and Shanghai. It weighed partnering with a "prominent footwear company" to create sneakers that would "leave your footprint on the surface of the Moon" and collaborating with a fashion show or gala to "elevat[e] Artemis into the luxury fashion world" by partnering with "high-end couture fashion houses."
"A series of collaborations that place Artemis into both the mainstream and vogue through futuristic and lunar-inspired pieces: sneakers, unisex clothing lines, and fashion events," it read.
Two NASA whistleblowers spoke with Blaze News about the severe decline in the agency's culture and the misuse of resources.
The scientists described "corrupt practices" and a "very toxic" work environment.
"I was told to be seen and not heard in all meetings related to science — as a scientist," the first source stated.
'People are very, very afraid to speak up.'
The source described her reaction to the Artemis playbook, stating, "It really just opened my eyes to the Public Affairs Office."
She noted the extent to which the PAO controls "all the information that comes in and out."
"I was just pretty shocked at how meticulous they were in controlling the narrative and already pre-identifying protagonists, antagonists," the scientist said.
Pointing to how the suggested storylines were selected, the source stated, "The way that they would cherry-pick these rags-to-riches stories of these astronauts, a lot of it was centered around DEI."
"It wasn't just the astronauts; it was with researchers and scientists and the interns that they already had outlined stories of basically, you know, the 'intern from India,'" she said, referring to one of the presentation's listed protagonists.
The scientist noted that it "felt very corrupt" and "didn't really feel authentic."
The source added that one of the most upsetting aspects of the playbook was a story that glorified the struggle of researchers who overcame a loss of funding.
Describing the presentation's story, the scientist told Blaze News, "Researchers and engineers lose funding to something, and they have to work hard to come together as a triumph. I just was completely flabbergasted by that."
"The amount of stress that is put on researchers and scientists to do this," she continued, "the fact that it's part of their narrative that they know that funding is going to be taken away — 'Let's test these scientists to their limits and glorify their struggle' … that was really appalling to me."
Outside the Artemis marketing playbook, the source claimed that the "biggest issue" was "toxic" employees. "They instill fear into so many scientists," she stated. "People are very, very afraid to speak up."
The second source told Blaze News that at first glance, the Artemis marketing playbook appeared to be a "typical government production document."
'NASA, in my opinion, has become a glorified DEI program.'
"As you dive into it, it becomes a lot less anodyne," he stated, adding that the marketing strategy focused less on NASA's aspirations to set foot on the moon and more on promoting a fabricated narrative.
"Is it my personal belief that the astronauts that have been selected for the Artemis missions thus far are qualified individuals? Yes, I sure do," the second source clarified. "The mission of NASA should be to … let the acts speak for themselves and let those people speak for themselves, instead of trying, again, to fabricate this kind of narrative to fit the storyline that really just isn't there."
The scientist described the shift in priorities at NASA as "almost mission creep."
He highlighted the "production value" of the Artemis playbook and questioned the potential waste and abuse within the federal government more generally.
"There's probably millions of dollars attached to this document," the source added. "There was a lot more effort and time and eyes that went into producing this document versus what's on public-facing websites."
The scientist noted that NASA's Artemis mission is "tens of billions of dollars over budget" and "behind schedule."
"People will say, 'It's always over budget and behind schedule,' but Artemis, I think, is a special case. We don't even have a tower to launch the damn rocket right now," the source added. "NASA, in my opinion, has become a glorified DEI program."
He explained that NASA has spent "way too much time" focusing on "anti-racism" and promoting gender ideology.
On February 12, Petro stated that the Department of Government Efficiency is planning to conduct a review of NASA's spending. The agency has an annual budget of approximately $24 billion.
She also noted that "hundreds" of NASA's 18,000 workers have accepted Trump's buyout offers.
The agency's probationary employees braced for a wave of potential layoffs that would have impacted 10% of its workforce. However, the Independent reported that the Trump administration decided to halt the mass firings. The layoffs are now reportedly on hold.
'Outrageously expensive.'
Musk has called the architecture of the Artemis program "extremely inefficient."
"It is a jobs-maximizing program, not a results-maximizing program," he wrote in December. "Something entirely new is needed."
Musk's SpaceX received a $2.9 billion contract from NASA in 2021 to help with its Artemis mission.
In a post last month, Musk called the mission to the moon "a distraction."
"We're going straight to Mars," he declared.
Trump's nominee for NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman, who has not yet been confirmed, has criticized the institution's Space Launch System, even calling it "outrageously expensive."
In 2023, Isaacman wrote in a post on X, "Lots of people try to turn this topic [into] a SpaceX/Elon vs. NASA debate. It is really just understanding the reality that the government is lousy at capital allocation & big prime contractors are incentivized to be economically inefficient and abusive."
"This is not specific to NASA, but priorities and budgets will change as the world changes," he continued. "A program, like SLS, that was outrageously expensive but tolerable because, 'hey everyone wins', quickly becomes underfunded or cancelled during different times with a different administration. The result, our children don't get to see many Moon landings and the dream of an enduring lunar presence fades away for many more decades."
NASA has already poured $40 billion into the Artemis mission, NPR reported. Delays in SLS development and Orion spacecraft heat shield issues have pushed the timeline back. The leaked playbook scheduled Artemis II for 2023 and the third phase for 2024, but Artemis II is now set for no earlier than April 2026.
A NASA spokesperson confirmed the playbook's authenticity to Blaze News.
"NASA is committed to engaging the best talent to drive innovation and achieve our mission for the benefit of all. As new guidance comes in, we’re working to adhere to new requirements in a timely manner. Our agency has complied with the requirements of executive orders and additional guidance from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. We're in the process of continuing to comply with the latest guidance, while also looking at content that was previously removed out of an abundance of caution and restoring content as appropriate," the spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.
"NASA routinely evaluates a wide range of ideas and strategies to engage the public in our missions. The referenced material appeared in a playbook developed in 2021 by a third party, which had limited use at the agency and reflected the priorities of the previous administration," the spokesperson continued. "Our focus remains on advancing Artemis and ensuring the public is informed and inspired by humanity’s return to the Moon and our preparations for the first human exploration of Mars."
Timothy Snyder may not be well known in American conservative circles, but his European influence is substantial. I hadn’t heard of the Yale historian until I moved to Vienna, Austria, where he enjoys a kind of celebrity status. European leaders frequently refer to his ideas, whether they are criticizing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or comparing JD Vance’s criticism of censorship at the Munich Security Conference last month to the Holocaust. These talking points have crossed the Atlantic, reaching U.S. media through figures like CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan. Snyder’s influence among the American left continues to grow.
I recently attended Snyder’s “Making Sense of an Unsettling World” lecture at Vienna’s Institute for Human Sciences. His casual demeanor, paired with a Zelenskyy-style quarter-zip — a nod to the Ukrainian leader he has met and advised — reinforces his “rebel professor” image. This blend of defiance and intellect captivates and galvanizes college students, making Snyder both a compelling and polarizing figure.
Snyder’s call to 'defend institutions' fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable.
After the predictable barrage of ad hominem attacks on Trump — of which there were many — Snyder shifted his focus to the most controversial figure in the administration: Elon Musk. As Snyder spoke, I couldn’t help but notice the vast ideological divide between the left and the right. This gap felt particularly sobering, not just because of its seemingly unbridgeable nature but also because Snyder's perspective undermines the very foundation necessary to bridge such divides: dissent and dialogue enabled by free speech.
Snyder accuses Musk of building a privatized, fascistic government by dismantling America's institutions. According to Snyder, we common folk are mere pawns in Musk’s algorithmic “system,” which he claims is designed to predict and manipulate human behavior. The goal, Snyder argues, is clear: to destroy institutions, privatize government functions, and siphon taxpayer dollars into Musk’s pockets.
Snyder’s argument centers on a critique of the conservative notion of “negative freedom” — the idea that freedom is best preserved by minimizing external restraints on the individual. He dismisses this concept as “freedom against,” portraying it as a tool ripe for exploitation by figures like Elon Musk. In Snyder's view, Musk uses this version of freedom to turn the masses “against” institutions, only to privatize them for personal gain later.
In contrast, Snyder champions the left-leaning principle of “positive freedom,” or “freedom for.”This approach suggests that freedom is only legitimate when exercised in service of ideals codified and enforced through institutions. According to Snyder's 2016 manifesto, which evolved into his New York Times best-selling pamphlet "On Tyranny," institutions “preserve human decency” and serve as the greatest barriers to tyranny. In this framework, Musk emerges as Snyder’s villain, a modern-day figure following in the footsteps of 20th-century fascists who dismantled institutions to consolidate power.
Snyder’s alarmism about Musk exposes the deep divide between the left and right on the nature of freedom and the role of institutions. While critiques of corporate and political power are valid, Snyder’s perspective assumes that institutions should be defended without question, a stance that conflicts with conservatives’ healthy skepticism of concentrated power — a skepticism the left once shared.
Positive freedom, as Snyder envisions it, relies on the belief that government can act as a benevolent force. This assumption contradicts James Madison’s warning that “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But angels don’t govern us. Washington bureaucrats are subject to the same ills and vices that make government over the masses necessary. Defending institutional authority without scrutiny undermines the conservative commitment to negative freedom — the principle that individual liberties should be checks against excessive power.
Snyder’s solution, then, is not just to oppose authoritarian figures but to resist decentralization itself. He cites Aristotle and Plato to argue that inequality leads to instability and that demagogues exploit free speech to seize power. In Snyder’s world, speech is only “free” when it supports institutional interests rather than challenges them. Yet his call to “defend institutions” fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable. Snyder assumes institutions are inherently legitimate, ignoring the need for them to be accountable to the people they serve.
Snyder’s argument falls apart here. The left's crusade against so-called oligarchs like Musk isn’t about returning power to the people — it’s about re-centralizing it under authorities leftists consider ideologically acceptable.
Negative freedom is dangerous to them because it allows individuals to dissent, challenge state-sanctioned narratives, and question institutional orthodoxy. Yet it is precisely this freedom that has protected human decency from the imposition of top-down tyranny.
Snyder is right that institutions should be defended when they uphold the people's dignity, rights, and liberties. But just as institutions act as a check on the whims of the populace, the dissent of the people serves as a vital check on the inherent corruptibility of institutions. As Madison argued, both safeguards are essential.
When Snyder and his growing following on the global left seek to suppress dissent for the sake of institutional authority, they don’t prevent tyranny — they empower it.
In the past month, Elon Musk has faced some serious drama.
First, the very public conflict with his reported baby mama Ashley St. Clair, then arsonists and protesters setting their sights on Tesla dealerships, and now the social media platform X is under attack.
“There was (still is) a massive cyberattack against X. We get attacked every day, but this was done with a lot of resources. Either a large, coordinated group and/or a country is involved. Tracing …” Musk wrote in a post on X.
“There is a group that’s already taken responsibility for it. Now, whether or not that is the case, it remains to be seen,” Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” says, noting that the claim could just be a cheap media stunt.
“Like, ‘Yes, it was us, we did it, we did it,’” Gonzales mocks.
The group is a pro-Palestinian hacker group who call themselves Dark Storm Team. In a public Telegram post, they claimed responsibility for a DDOS attack on the platform. They’re previously known for targeting countries and entities that support Israel's attack on Gaza.
However, Musk isn’t buying it, telling Larry Kudlow in an interview on Fox News that the hackers had “IP addresses originating in the Ukraine area.”
Gonzales doesn’t buy it either.
“If you dig into some of their history and what they’ve been about with their hacking expertise, I guess you would say, which like, guys, get a real job,” she explains, “you find a bunch of political motives and also pro-Hamas history.”
“But then it’s like, would a group that nobody has heard of really be capable without the help of insiders or another country’s government? I personally have a hard time believing that,” she adds.
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
George Soros-backed Judge Susan Crawford tried to make the election a referendum on Elon Musk. She sounded like a testy schoolmarm.
Sen. Eric Schmitt decried the censorship-industrial complex that enables public-private partnership to 'censor Americans.'
First, it was ABC’s Martha Raddatz. Then, it was CBS’s Margaret Brennan. And now, Military.com’s Patricia Kime is the latest member of the propaganda press to get a well-deserved scolding from the Trump administration for masquerading her left-wing activism as reporting. The moment came during a newly released sit-down exchange between Kime and Veterans Affairs […]
thefederalist.com