Rumors are circulating that Elon Musk is spending $40 million on five Super Bowl commercials aimed at exposing government waste discovered by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) through USAID.
X (formerly Twitter) users are buzzing with excitement, calling Musk a “legend” and suggesting that the ads might provoke panic among Democrats.
One user asked, “Does anyone know if it's true that Elon Musk bought advertising for the Super Bowl? I hear he spent $40 million on five 30-second spots to expose government waste.”
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created by President Donald Trump on January 20, was designed to reduce federal spending. Led by Musk, the task force claims to have saved over $1 billion by cutting wasteful contracts, such as those related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. However, DOGE has also raised concerns among Democrats and consumer advocates, especially after gaining access to the Treasury Department’s payment system, which contains personal data for millions of Americans.
Supporters of DOGE argue that its mission to reduce unnecessary government spending is critical, particularly as the national debt has skyrocketed to $36 trillion. Trump has called for cuts to programs that don’t align with his policies and a reduction in the federal workforce.
However, critics worry that Musk’s involvement with DOGE could present conflicts of interest, given his companies, including SpaceX, receive billions in government contracts. They raise concerns about potential access to sensitive data regarding competitors’ federal contracts.
Super Bowl advertising is among the most expensive in the world, with a 30-second spot for this year’s game costing around $8 million. Musk has not confirmed nor denied the rumors regarding his Super Bowl ads, so fans will have to wait for the game on February 9th between the Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles to see if the commercials materialize.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ