Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Art of Squirming

I suppose that all politicians sometimes play confidence games, and the number one trick of confidence artists is the Squirm and Shift. Known in the business world as Overpromise and Underdeliver.

Such was the travesty of a news conference held yesterday, February 11, 2025, by United States President Donald Trump and his supervisor, billionaire Elon Musk, who heads a semi-mythical government agency called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which supposedly uncovers fraud and waste. As his young son clung to him, entertaining the TV audience while distracting everyone from the issues, as only an adorable child can, Musk slithered around the issues.

The central theme behind DOGE’s fallacies is equivocation about words like “fraud” and “abuse”. Or the phrase, beloved by politicians, “fraud and waste.” Fraud and waste are, although both bad, not the same. The public most often thinks that fraud is an illegal act in which money or services are obtained by trickery. However, if we bunch “fraud and waste” together, we can use the word “fraud” (or even “treason”) to describe any expenditure of which we disapprove. Note that it is often hard to prove fraud in the usual sense, but it is easy to prove that someone is spending money in a way we disagree with. Nevertheless, “fraud” sounds terrible – indeed, illegal – whereas “I don’t like the way we are spending money” might be more accurate, but fails to create the same blood-curdling chills. Fraud sounds terrible, while misplaced priorities come down to value judgments.

Anyway, citing fraud and abuse, Trump introduced Musk’s presentation:

“And we’re going to be signing a very important deal today. It’s DOGE and I'm going to ask Elon to tell you a little bit about it and some of the things that we’ve found which are shocking, billions and billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. And I think it’s very important.” [italics added]

Now, later in the news conference, one reporter, having discovered that DOGE had made a factual error about condom purchases, asked this reasonable question:

“Mr. Musk, you said on X that an example of the fraud that you have cited was $50 million of condoms was sent to Gaza, but after fact check[ing] this, apparently Gaza and Mozambique and the program was to protect them against HIV. So, can you correct the statements? It wasn't sent to Hamas, actually. It was sent to Mozambique, which makes sense why condoms [were] sent there. And how can we make sure that all the statements that you said were correct so we can trust what you say?”

That is, the reporter caught DOGE making a careless error, and gently asked Musk whether DOGE’s findings are trustworthy (which they obviously are not). Musk responded:

“Well, first of all, some of the things that I say will be incorrect and should be corrected. So, nobody's going to bat a thousand. I mean, we will make mistakes, but we'll act quickly to correct any mistakes.”

After tentatively and quite vaguely admitting that he made a reckless mistake, Musk immediately squirmed and shifted his argument to a question of policy values:

“I'm not sure we should be sending $50 million worth of condoms to anywhere, frankly. I'm not sure that's something Americans would be really excited about. And that is really an enormous number of condoms, if you think about it. But if it went to Mozambique instead of Gaza, I'm like, ‘Okay, that's not as bad. But still, why are we doing that?’”

Let us simply unpack that exchange. First, Musk did not specifically admit that he had made a silly mistake. From the standpoint of dialectical honesty, he should have said something like, “Well, it sounds as if I made an error, and I guess I should have been more careful about that.” He didn’t. Instead, he fidgeted.

Second, Musk continued to promote his case even though his premise turned out to be factually false. Now, the condoms had not gone to Hamas, which United States considers to be a terrorist organization. Instead, they went to the more peaceable nation of Mozambique. Furthermore, the purpose of the condom shipment was to reduce the spread of a deadly disease – not to support vicious terrorists. With the wind totally taken out of his argument, Musk stated: “I'm not sure we should be sending $50 million worth of condoms to anywhere.” He could have admitted that he was wrong but that he wanted to give a different argument against the condoms. However, he did not. Instead, Musk admitted that “That’s not as bad,” but nevertheless persisted. He plowed right past his mistake.

The aura of government mismanagement, the implication that the condom shipment was tantamount to treason, had been utterly refuted. Did Musk back off? No.

I think that many American voters would label a program that supplies sexual aids to a terrorist organization as fraud and abuse. I suspect that many Americans would consider it a good thing to reduce the spread of HIV. Shifting and squirming, wriggling and writhing, DOGE had created the impression that a basically healthy program was tantamount to fraud, or gross mismanagement, or something like that. The reality of humanitarian aid was besmirched by the false aura of fraud, sullied by a careless but momentous factual mistake. Most critically, Musk totally ignored the reporter’s punchline: “And how can we make sure that all the statements that you said were correct so we can trust what you say?” That was the real question. If DOGE’s wild accusations turn out to be factually false, or even fabricated, why should the public give the slightest credence to anything that DOGE or Musk has to say? Musk never answered! Instead, slippery as a California rattlesnake, he slithered away from that real issue.

And that, dear readers, is the black magic of ambiguity. Equivocation. Shifting and squirming. Refusing to debate openly. Politicians practice those evil tactics all the time. Nasty Democrats have done it, but this time it was a contemptible Republican. And it is my job, as a specialist in argumentation and debate, to call out this kind of sneaky argument whenever I see it.

Oh, what a better world we would have, what a happier nation, if politicians would debate honestly!

by William D. Harpine

 

Earlier Posts:

Elon Musk's 2016 Mars Speech: A Speech and a Vision

Debbie Lesko, Anthony Fauci, and the "Illusion of Proof"

_______

P.S.: Thanks to rev.com, a commercial transcription service, for providing a prompt verbatim copy of the press conference. 

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image from DOGE.gov's rapidly changing website

Tucker Carlson Used a Textbook Fallacy to Question the Coronavirus Vaccines

Coronavirus, CDC image

In a recent commentary, Tucker Carlson said: “To say it in unison – and they’re all saying it – that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated is simply untrue, that’s a lie.” Strong words! However, public health authorities’ point is that the vaccines are highly effective. Carlson’s rebuttal was that the vaccines are not completely effective. Carlson’s point is a classic example of the false dilemma fallacy. That is, Carlson implied that the vaccine is either effective or it is not – all or nothing. That is a fallacy because no vaccine works all the time.

People commit the false dilemma fallacy when they tell us that we only have two choices when, in fact, we have many. A vaccine might be perfect. A vaccine might be imperfect. Those are not, however, the only two choices. As Kathy Katella of Yale Medicine points out, the current vaccines used in the United States are 86%-98% effective in preventing severe coronavirus infections. Although that is an excellent result, it’s not perfect.  In Texas, for example, 99.5% of coronavirus deaths were among persons who were not vaccinated. Similarly, North Carolina health officials report that 94% of new coronavirus cases are among unvaccinated patients.

Still, if a tiny percentage of the serious illnesses occur among vaccinated people, does that prove that the vaccines do not work? Or does it merely prove that they are slightly imperfect?

To perpetuate his false dilemma fallacy, Carlson first cited British public health authority Sir Patrick Vallance, who said that 40% of British coronavirus hospital patients have been fully vaccinated. Carlson’s conclusion: “it makes you wonder how effective are these drugs anyway.”

Carlson contrasted this figure against what he said were promises made by American officials: “In the U.S., they’re telling us that no one who’s been fully vaccinated is fine. The only people getting dangerously sick or dying from COVID are the people who refused to get the vaccine.” In part, of course, Carlson was working with ambiguous or overstated comments by American officials, such as President Joe Biden’s comment that “The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated and they’re killing people.” (Biden could, of course, have phrased his point more precisely.)

Did you notice Carlson’s rhetorical trick? “They’re telling us that no one who’s been fully vaccinated is fine.” I assume he meant to say “everyone,” not “no one.” In either case, “everyone” and “no one” are absolutes. The false dilemma fallacy requires us to think in absolutes, in all-or-nothing terms. Carlson was leading his audience astray, for public health doesn’t deal in absolutes.

Carlson next slipped in one additional step: he sarcastically said that we are being told that “the only people getting sick are the ones who for political reasons have refused to get the vaccines. How many times have you heard that in the past month? As they continue to politicize medicine – almost at an irrecoverable point.” Again, notice the trick: “the only people.” Not most people, not almost everyone, but the only people. Another absolute.

Carlson's next target was CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who said that “This is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We are seeing outbreaks of cases in parts of the country that have low vaccination coverage because unvaccinated people are at risk.” She continued that: “communities that are fully vaccinated are generally faring well.” She then pointed out that people who are unvaccinated were very much at risk.

Walensky worded her statement pretty carefully. Carlson, however, exaggerated her point just a little bit to get to his fallacious conclusion. What Carlson said is this:

“Our CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, has said the same thing. If you’re vaccinated, Rochelle Walensky has assured us, you’re safe. You’re not just protected from infection – you're protected from serious illness or hospitalization, and even the lurking menace known as the Delta variant.”

There, Carlson didn't refute Walensky’s claim that the vaccines are protective – which they obviously are. Instead, he said that public health authorities are falsely telling us that, if you’re vaccinated, “you’re safe.” All or nothing.

So, if a few people get sick after being vaccinated, does that prove that the vaccines don’t work? Of course not. It does, however, let Carlson introduce a seed of doubt.

Now, I will agree that the public health authorities, who seek for us to avoid illness, sometimes overstate their case a little bit. Wise managers know that it’s smart to under-promise and over-deliver. I certainly understand that public health authorities want to encourage us to get vaccinated and to keep ourselves safe. At the same time, no public health authority can phrase a point so carefully that someone as unscrupulous as Tucker Carlson can’t twist and squirm. 

Conspiracy theories work with fallacies by their nature. A fallacy is, by definition, a flawed argument that can be made to seem reasonable. We hear that a few people got sick after taking the vaccine, and assume that the vaccine is useless. That is a fallacy because the majority of people who take the vaccine are highly protected and safe. In our current atmosphere of political mistrust, illogical arguments find fertile ground in the minds of people who are suspicious and uninformed. Knowing this, Tucker Carlson took full advantage to spread his bizarre conspiracy theory.

I think all of us like to think in absolutes. If I never run a red light, I think I will never be hit at an intersection. If I never drink alcohol, I think I’ll never get liver disease. Unfortunately, the real world gives us few absolutes. The real world faces us with gray areas, probabilities, and risk factors. When we start to think in all-or-nothing terms, we oversimplify our problems and make bad decisions. 

• Donald Trump Committed Straw Man Fallacies

• Tucker Carlson Got Tricky with His Evidence About Climate Change

Research Note: The best source about fallacies is still Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. 

Donald Trump and the Art of Saying Ridiculous Things

Donald Trump, WH portrait

Donald Trump is on record as saying that he intended to play down the coronavirus epidemic, except now he is on the record saying that he didn’t play it down. Will this obvious contradiction affect his public support? Of course not. He didn’t just play down the coronavirus; he played down the contradiction. His technique was to commit the well-known fallacy of equivocation. This is the fallacy of using words that mean different things in different contexts.

Yes, Trump Said He Played the Virus Down…

 

First, here’s what he told reporter Bob Woodward a few months ago, in a sound recording:

 

“I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”

 

That’s clear as a bell, isn’t it?  So we thought….

 

Unfortunately, people need accurate information during an international crisis, and Trump admitted – on the record – that he was speaking falsely.

 

 

… But Now He Says He Played the Virus Up

 

But now let’s look at what he said in yesterday’s ABC Town Hall in Pennsylvania, where he faced questions from undecided voters. I’ll quote his entire exchange with voter Joni Powell: 

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s get one final question on COVID.

We’ve got Joni Powell right here. She’s from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. And you actually haven’t voted before.

TRUMP: How are you?

POWELL: Hello, hi. My question is, if you believe it’s the president’s responsibility to protect America, why would you downplay a pandemic that is known to disproportionately harm low-income families and minority communities?

TRUMP: Yeah. Well, I didn’t downplay it. I actually -- in many ways I up-played it in terms of action. My action was very strong.

POWELL: Did you not admit to it yourself?

TRUMP: Yes, because what I did was, with China – I put a ban on with Europe, I put a ban on. And we would have lost thousands of more people, had I not put the ban on.

So that was called action, not with the mouth, but an actual fact. We did a very, very good job when we put that ban on. Whether you call it talent or luck, it was very important. So we saved a lot of lives when we did that.

 

And, a bit later, responding to a question by moderator George Stephanopoulos, Trump said:

 

“I'm not looking to be dishonest. I don't want people to panic. And we are going to be OK. We're going to be OK, and it is going away. And it's probably going to go away now a lot faster because of the vaccines.”

That exchange gave the press great mirth. He said he played the virus down, but now he says he played it up. Both statements can’t be true, can they? 

But Trump actually played a clever magic trick. A stage magician can convince you that the rabbit is inside the hat when it’s really under the table. A magician can pull an ordinary object from a place in which it could not possibly be. A seemingly sadistic magician can apparently saw a young woman in half without harming her at all.

In this case, Trump played a trick with words.

Trump's Word Games

Coronavirus, CDC

First move: In his interview with Bob Woodward, Trump was talking about playing the virus down rhetorically. He said his goal was to avoid panic by not saying anything that would spook people. Telling people that there was a bad virus would spook them, maybe hurting the stock market or causing disruptive public behavior. By playing it down, Trump gave people hope that the whole thing would go away shortly. Unfortunately, the virus did not go away; it has gotten much worse and there are now almost 200,000 confirmed coronavirus deaths in the United States alone. 

Here are some of the things he said to play it down:

February 28, 2020:

“Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus.… This is their new hoax.”

February 28, 2020:

“It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”

 March 4, 2020: 

“Now, this is just my hunch, but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people have this and it is very mild.” 

Second move: Responding to Powell’s question, Trump did not talk about what he said.  He talked about what he did, not what he told people. The Trump administration has obviously failed to provide adequate personal protective equipment for medical professionals, much less the public. Trump  implemented a national testing policy slowly, and repeatedly pushed schools and businesses to reopen when it was obviously unsafe. He did one useful thing of which he was very proud. That is, he instituted a partial ban against travel from China. Since the virus originated in China, it’s reasonable to think that the partial ban slowed the virus’ spread into the United States for a time. He emphasized and perhaps overstated that one positive point. 

Third move: Finally, Trump pretended that his position had not changed at all. In yesterday’s Town Hall, Trump actually stuck to his rhetorical point: he reiterated that “I don’t want people to panic.” That is, he repeated and reinforced the original point that he made to Bob Woodward. Rhetorically speaking, he was still saying a version of the same thing.

At the same time, Trump can no longer reasonably repeat his absurd denials about the virus.  During the Town Hall, he reinforced that “I don’t want people to panic” while not repeating the absurd claims, which only a fool would believe today, that the virus was “their new hoax” or that it would go away “like a miracle.” Nevertheless, he still insisted that the virus would go away, but he shifted a little bit about what that meant: “it is going away” now meant that it would go away when the vaccine became available. That is not what he said the first time. 

Trump could, however, claim that he was playing the virus up, not down, because of his travel ban. If he had done something else positive to slow down the virus, I’m sure he would have said it. Alas…

Worse, Trump told people what the fallacy was even as he committed it: “So that was called action, not with the mouth, but an actual fact.” It’s as if a robber says, “I’m going to rob you,” and thinks it’s okay because he told the victim what he was doing. This, however, was not a robbery; Trump's rhetorical move was trickier than a Las Vegas magic act.

Earlier Post: Trump Commits Straw Person Fallacies 

How Not to Be Fooled

If you’re watching a magic show, and the magician tells you to look at her hands, you need to look somewhere else because the hands are misdirecting you. If you’re watching a magic act, and you hear a loud noise, and you want to understand the trick, look anywhere except at the noise. The noise is a distraction. 

Similarly, when figuring out Donald Trump, do not just listen to what he says. Listen to what he doesn’t say. In the Town Hall, Trump didn’t deny that he told Bob Woodward that he wanted to “play it down.” Nor did he deny that he had misinformed the public. He obviously had; it was on tape. 

Once you notice what Trump did not say, your next step is to look for word games. In his Bob Woodward interview, “play it down” referred to his efforts to say things to keep the public from worrying. In yesterday’s Town Hall, “play it down” referred to his policy actions, not his words.

Words are tricky, for an argument to be logical, we must use words with the same meaning from the beginning of the argument to the end. In this case, Trump played word games. 

Yes, Trump contradicted himself completely. He had talked himself into an inconsistent position. He was desperate for a way to wiggle out of it. No one who listened carefully would be fooled. However, his trick was not as simple as just contradicting himself, and his word games gave his supporters an excuse to justify his actions. This, by the way, is why everyone needs to study critical thinking and learn the basic principles of logic. Trump played the virus down in one way, while playing it up in another way, and then pretended that they were the same things. His technique was illogical and disreputable, but cunning.

 

Technical note: The trick that Trump played represents what philosophers call the fallacy of equivocation.  Sometimes equivocation is funny. Do you remember when the Queen refused to give Alice any jam in Through the Looking Glass?  “It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know.” To Alice, “every other day” meant alternate days, but “any other day” means that it is a different day, not an alternate day. Confused, poor Alice decided that the whole thing was “complicated.” When tricky people commit fallacies, they want to make simple things seem more complicated than they really are. Fallacies persuade people because they confuse people. When Trump commits equivocation in public policy, however, lives are at stake. It is not funny at all. People are dying. 

We can short-circuit tricksters if we define our terms at the start of a discussion. Dr. Alan Fuchs, one of my favorite William and Mary professors, said that you should begin every discourse by defining your terms. Oh, was he ever right! 

I've occasionally published technical articles about fallacies. If you're interested, click on "William D. Harpine's Publications" above and browse around.