Musk not Gleason? Poor Mr Fischer. Who is running DOGE?

I am sure this letter finds you in high spirits, basking in the glow of your recent address to Congress on March 4, 2025, with all the staff you’ve paid to tell you what you want to hear under the threat of you destroying them. Your remarks about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) were nothing short of inspiring. Who could have imagined that efficiency could be so… efficient? Truly, a modern miracle. And let’s not forget the pièce de résistance: “The brand-new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE—perhaps you’ve heard of it?—which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight? Thank you, Elon.” Cue the applause, the standing ovation, the collective gasp of a nation. Elon Musk, savior of efficiency, hero of the fiscal frontier. Bravo. Now, I must admit, your praise for Mr. Musk was not entirely unexpected. After all, the man did donate a modest $288 million to your campaign. (A mere drop in the bucket for someone of his means, but still—quite the gesture!) Still, I was mildly surprised to hear his name in the context of DOGE’s leadership. Why, you ask? Well, it might have something to do with that pesky little affidavit submitted by Joshua Fischer, Director of the Office of Administration, in February 2025. You know, the one where he clarified—under oath, no less—that Elon Musk is not the administrator of DOGE. According to Mr. Fischer, Musk is merely a “non-career special government employee” and a senior advisor to the President, with no formal authority to make government decisions. Surely, Mr. Fischer wouldn’t lie about such a thing. I mean, who would risk disbarment and criminal charges over something so trivial? But let’s not dwell on semantics. What’s truly baffling is the omission of one Amy Gleason from your address. You remember Amy, don’t you? The woman who has been actually running DOGE and driving these billions in savings? The one whose hard work in uncovering wasteful government spending has been the backbone of your administration’s fiscal success? No? Well, perhaps it’s because she’s a woman. Or maybe it’s because you think she could be a DEI hire. (Oh, wait—is that still a thing? You got rid of all those. I can’t keep up.) So, here’s my question: Could you please clarify why Amy Gleason’s contributions were left unmentioned, while Elon Musk—who, according to the affidavit, has no formal authority over DOGE—was given the spotlight? Was it the $288 million? Was it the charisma? Or was it just easier to pronounce “Elon” than “Amy”? I eagerly await your response. In the meantime, I’ll be mailing you a great book: The Emperor’s New Clothes.