It's hard to take a war on public health measures, public-interest science institutions like NOAA, and public education as evidence of good faith.

It's not as if they're starting where the obvious bloat is (defence, fossil fuel subsidies...) and working back to the rounding errors.

It's entirely predictable supremacism - the doctrine that wealth and skin colour define virtue, and government in the public interest, which interferes with the "freedom" to abuse and exploit inferiors for profit, is an unnatural abomination.

> The actual quote is the other way around.

I am well aware.

> What evidence does the parent have for intentions to harm

Just watch/read the news since 2016. Too much to list.

In addition Elon is seen as a captain of industry. PayPal. Tesla. Space X. So it can be that Elon is inept.

Simplistic, sledgehammer solutioneering is an intention to harm. Randomly firing entire teams whose director feels they are "the 'gold standard' of civic technologists" produces immediate and knowable damage. Nobody who wanted government technology to function well would do such a thing.

Is it possible that they have some other, important objective which can only be achieved by degrading the quality of government technology? In principle. But I haven't seen any explanation of what that objective could possibly be, and I have seen people with arguments for why they think it should not be easy to get access to NOAA weather data and it should not be easy to file your taxes with the IRS.

>What evidence does the parent have for intentions to harm instead of just making stupid cuts, completely inline with their well documented history of simplistic, sledgehammer solutioneering ?

Their own words:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/10/who-is-russe...