Elon & Trump’s $Billion Lies (The Real Math Behind the Hype)

DOGE just released some audit points this past week and took to X to frame the points as a MAJOR win.

This audit was repeated at the Department of Labor. Initial results:
– 380 Microsoft 365 licenses with zero users
– 128 Microsoft Teams conference room licenses;
– 250 VSCode licenses; only using 33
-129 Photoshop licenses; only using 22
– 5 cybersecurity licenses, each with > 20k seats;
DOL headcount is <15k

It’s laughable,really. Fortunately, there were commentors that did not disappoint. But what really struck me was how many people in the general public took this so-called ‘win’ at face value ran to the streets with yet another ‘victory lap.’ It’s crucial to recognize what posts like this from DOGE and the White House actually represent—and what they’re designed to distract from.

The Illusion of Generosity

In business and politics, perception is often more powerful than reality. This is especially true when it comes to financial decisions that appear grand on the surface but, in reality, are mere drops in the bucket. The ability to shape narratives around financial moves is a powerful tool, often used to distract from more significant underlying concerns.

Take Elon Musk and Donald Trump—both are known for their ability to dominate headlines and craft narratives that position them as financial masterminds. Their latest move? A flashy financial gesture that, when examined closely, amounts to little more than a marketing stunt. The numbers sound impressive when presented in isolation, but when you put them in context, the impact is minuscule.

As business owners, Elon and Trump know how to window dress. This is chump change. Ask them to put that in % of total opex please.

This statement cuts to the core of the issue. When a business or government touts cost savings or financial contributions without context, it’s often a strategic move to distract from a much larger, more concerning reality. The ability to present financial decisions in a favorable light is a common strategy in the business world. However, when this tactic is used in political and public economic discourse, it becomes an issue of misinformation and misdirection.

The Art of Window Dressing

In corporate finance, “window dressing” refers to the practice of making short-term moves to make financial statements look more attractive than they really are. It’s a tactic used to impress shareholders, customers, or—when applied in politics—voters. This strategy can make financials look stronger than they are, leading people to believe that progress is being made when, in reality, the changes are insignificant.

Companies and political figures alike employ this method in several ways:

• A company might cut minor expenses while ignoring ballooning costs elsewhere.
• A politician might highlight a small financial “win” while pushing policies that add trillions to the national debt.
• A business mogul might announce a charitable donation that represents only a tiny fraction of their total wealth.

Musk and Trump, both seasoned in the business world, understand this well. When they highlight a financial move as a “win,” the real question should be: What does this mean in relation to the bigger picture?

The Reality Check: OPEX Matters

Operating expenses (OPEX) tell the real story of financial health. Any cost savings or investment should be analyzed in the context of total spending. If a business claims to save millions but operates on a budget of billions, the impact is marginal at best. The same logic applies to national spending—what looks like a big deal in a headline could be inconsequential when measured as a percentage of total government expenditures.

This is why percentages matter. If a company with a $100 billion OPEX announces that they’ve saved $50 million, that’s only 0.05% of their total expenses. In everyday terms, that’s like a person making $100,000 a year saving just $50—it’s almost negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Elon Musk: Master of Financial Narratives

Elon Musk is a genius at controlling narratives. Whether it’s about Tesla, SpaceX, or his acquisitions like Twitter, Musk knows how to capture the public’s attention. His financial moves are often framed as revolutionary, but when examined in context, they frequently reveal a different story.

Consider Musk’s approach to Tesla’s finances. He has often highlighted cost-saving measures or efficiency gains while downplaying the company’s reliance on government subsidies and tax credits. When Tesla returns a few million dollars in unused tax credits, it sounds great—but compared to the billions the company receives in subsidies, the gesture is practically meaningless.

Musk’s handling of Twitter (now X) is another example. He has announced sweeping changes to make the platform “profitable” and “lean,” but the cost-cutting measures he touts barely put a dent in the company’s losses. Layoffs and infrastructure cuts might reduce expenses in the short term, but without a sustainable revenue model, they don’t address the fundamental financial challenges.

Donald Trump: The Illusion of Business Success

Trump, like Musk, has built his career on the perception of financial success. His real estate empire, brand deals, and even his presidency have all relied on the ability to shape financial narratives to his advantage.

One of Trump’s favorite tactics is to claim financial success based on revenue rather than profit. A business can generate billions in revenue but still operate at a loss if expenses outweigh earnings. Trump has applied this approach to both his businesses and government policies. He often touts financial gains or tax cuts as major economic victories, but when examined in the context of total government spending, they often have little real impact.

For example, Trump’s 2017 tax cuts were marketed as a massive win for the American people. However, when analyzed in the context of the national debt and long-term economic impact, they disproportionately benefited the wealthy while adding trillions to the deficit.

Why the Public Should Demand More Transparency

When financial moves are presented without context, they serve as distractions. They allow leaders to frame themselves as fiscally responsible while making decisions that may be anything but. The public deserves transparency, not theatrics.

To ensure that financial decisions are truly beneficial, we must ask key questions:

1. What percentage of total expenses does this move impact?
2. What are the long-term implications of this decision?
3. Does this move create actual value, or is it just for show?
4. Who benefits the most from this financial decision?
5. Is this move sustainable, or is it a short-term distraction?

The answers to these questions provide a clearer picture of whether financial moves are meaningful or just another example of window dressing.

Looking Beyond the Headlines

In an era where financial narratives can be carefully curated and manipulated, critical thinking is more important than ever. While Musk and Trump may excel at crafting compelling financial stories, it’s up to the public to dig deeper and analyze the full context.

When a financial move is presented as a major victory, always ask: How does this compare to total picture (OPEX)?
Because numbers without context are just another way to dress up a window.

Final Thoughts: Accountability Over Showmanship

At the end of the day, financial narratives should not be accepted at face value. Whether it’s a CEO boasting about cost savings or a politician claiming fiscal responsibility, the real measure of success lies in transparency and long-term impact.

The next time a high-profile figure touts a financial win, challenge it. Ask for percentages, demand full context, and push for accountability. Because if we allow window dressing to dictate our understanding of financial reality, we risk being manipulated by those who know how to play the game better than anyone else.

Numbers don’t lie, but they can be used to tell misleading stories. It’s up to us to ensure we’re looking beyond the surface to see the bigger picture.