This will resolve to yes if the department is still a real or virtual entity and Musk is still one of the named leaders. It will resolve to no if musk has been “fired” from this role or has stepped back from this role publicly.
1,000Trump administration simultaneously claims Musk is in charge and not in charge:
During an appearance at the Future Investment Institute Summit in Miami, Trump told attendees at the Saudi investment fund event exactly what Musk’s real job is.
“I signed an order creating the Department of Government Efficiency, and put a man named Elon Musk in charge,” Trump said.
For an administration that loves to tout its own radical transparency, they sure seem to want to mislead Americans on who is really calling the shots at DOGE.
The Trump administration filed a court declaration Monday asserting that Musk’s official title is “senior adviser to the president,” a position that holds “no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself.” It also claims that Musk isn’t a DOGE employee or its administrator, but an employee of the White House.
https://newrepublic.com/post/191739/donald-trump-elon-musk-runs-doge-legal-chaos
@TP8ac2 We will transparently tell you who is really in charge, but hide, complicate and obfuscate official situation so it is harder for anyone to sue. Wonderful transparency 🤣
@JHB06de
Clearly he is a special advisor to Trump. Also never been a DOGE employee despite appearances otherwise? Paragraph 6 seems perfectly clear?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277463/gov.uscourts.dcd.277463.24.1.pdf
@JHB06de Yes I would accept that he is a leader and that document does not preclude that.
However when asking if he is a "named leader"? While accepting some role, it seems much harder defend saying he is a "named leader". More like unnamed and known but not formally "named".
I am now very unclear what you were saying when you said "He has to be a named leader".
@ChristopherRandles ok. Good point. He was clearly named by Trump at the beginning and I look up for him being removed from that “role”. It’s super difficult.
@JHB06de https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-appears-contradict-white-house-says-elon-musk-charge-doge-2025-02-20/
Perhaps that counts as being a named leader?
@ChristopherRandles yes. I think this resolves to NO only if that sentiment changes in the next few days.
@JHB06de "Who would have thought he could be in charge and yet not a named leader."
I'm not going to contest this if you resolve YES, but this was kind of a confusing thing to write. It led me to believe you thought that yesterday he was not a named leader.
@JoshuaWilkes perhaps I worded it badly in a rush. It feels like a paradox: in charge and not officially recorded/written down.
@JHB06de Polymarket resolved this market the other way after this news dropped. It seems as though he was never officially the leader de jure. However, he has certainly been acting as a de facto leader, and it is ultimately your call.
@JHB06de Polymarket clarification:
A bulletin board rules update has been posted to the market: "Elon Musk out as Head of DOGE in 2025?"
https://polymarket.com/market/elon-musk-out-as-head-of-doge-in-2025
Per the rules if Musk ceases to be head of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) this market will resolve to "Yes".
On February 17, the White House stated that Musk is an employee in the White House Office and is not the administrator nor an employee of DOGE (see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69638651/24/1/state-of-new-mexico-v-musk/). Thus, this market should resolve to “Yes”.
2025-02-18 17:55:47
@JoshuaWilkes
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-job-title-unlisted-2025-2
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/03/politics/musk-government-employee/index.html
appointed as "special government employee", seems involved with DOGE, but actual role with DOGE not clear nor 'named'.
But does this mean A) it resolves no on technically not being a named leader of DOGE? or
B) Is the situation clear that he is a leading person with DOGE such that question will resolve yes - more of a substance over form interpretation?
Comment made by creator above looks like it is saying A not B, I think. (i.e. could be wrong.)
Of course if something comes to light showing a formal role or an appointment to DOGE that might change things.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-doge-not-employee-no-authority-white-house-says/
But a new court filing from the White House states that the Tesla CEO isn't an employee of DOGE, adding that Musk "has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277463/gov.uscourts.dcd.277463.24.1.pdf