> Ok, but what does that have to do with the nature of the young guys charged with the analysis?

Because the only reason they are doing it is because they don't know enough about their legal exposure to know they should not. They aren't qualified to handle this data. I thought the whole thing was we were going to have a meritocracy.

Ok, so you acknowledge that there's a conflict of interest, and you still think that Elon Musk is the only human who can possibly find government inefficiency?

I have some less polite ways of saying this so I'll keep to myself, but that seems like a profoundly ignorant viewpoint. There are 330 million Americans, and the only person that could possibly find government inefficiency is a guy with extremely clear and obvious conflicts of interest? Ridiculous, I do not believe that you actually believe that.

I personally think that it is extraordinarily stupid to get someone who routinely gets government contracts to be in charge of determining what is "efficient". I personally wouldn't choose any active CEO, but even if you believe that somehow a businessman is going to be better, couldn't you choose a CEO that doesn't have federal contracts? Even if it was a conservative, even if it were someone who I absolutely despised, it would still be a better choice than Elon Musk. I genuinely cannot think of a worse choice for this project than Elon, honestly.

My distaste for Trump and Musk has nothing to do with whether I'd "like them in person". I already dislike most people and I am quite confident I would not like any politician if I met them in person. I do not make my political decisions based on "how much I would like hanging out with them".

I think Trump and Elon are profoundly stupid people, and they're kind of a match made in heaven, which I find very dangerous.

"Western Civilization persisting" shouldn't start with an dubiously-legal "department" with clear conflicts of interest. This shouldn't be controversial.