MxM News

Quick Hit:

In a bombshell revelation at a White House cabinet meeting, Elon Musk announced that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had uncovered over $330 million in Small Business Administration (SBA) loans issued to children under the age of 11.

Key Details:

• Elon Musk stated that DOGE found $330 million in SBA loans given to individuals under the age of 11.
• The youngest recipient was reportedly just nine months old, receiving a $100,000 loan.
• SBA has now paused the direct loan process for individuals under 18 and over 120 years old.

Diving Deeper:

At a cabinet meeting held Monday at the White House, President Donald Trump and Elon Musk detailed a staggering example of federal waste  uncovered by the newly-formed Department of Government Efficiency. Speaking directly to ongoing efforts to eliminate corruption and abuse in federal agencies, Musk explained that the SBA had awarded hundreds of millions in loans to children—some of whom were still in diapers.

“A case of fraud was with the Small Business Administration, where they were handing out loans — $330 million worth of loans to people under the age of 11,” Musk said. “I think the youngest, Kelly, was a nine-month year old who got a $100,000 loan. That’s a very precocious baby we’re talking about here.”

DOGE’s findings forced the SBA to abruptly change its loan procedures. In a post on X, the department revealed it would now require applicants to include their date of birth and was halting direct loans to those under 18 and above 120 years old. Musk commented sarcastically: “No more loans to babies or people too old to be alive.”

The discovery was just the latest in a series of contract cancellations and fraud crackdowns led by DOGE. According to Breitbart News, DOGE recently canceled 105 contracts totaling $935 million in potential taxpayer liabilities. The agency’s website currently lists over 6,600 terminated contracts, accounting for $20 billion in savings.

The president praised Musk and DOGE for rooting out government inefficiencies, noting his administration was focused on “cutting” people and programs that were not working or delivering results. “We’re not going to let people collect paychecks or taxpayer funds without doing their jobs,” Trump said.

Also during the cabinet session, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins revealed her department had eliminated a $300,000 program aimed at teaching “food justice” to transgender and queer farmers in San Francisco. “I’m not even sure what that means,” Rollins said, “but apparently the last administration wanted to put our taxpayer dollars towards that.”

These revelations highlight what many conservatives have long suspected—that during prior administrations, including under President Joe Biden, massive amounts of federal funding were funneled into unserious, ideologically-driven projects and mismanaged government programs. Under the Trump administration’s second term, DOGE appears to be living up to its mission: trimming fat, exposing fraud, and putting American taxpayers first.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel

Public opinion on pipelines has shifted. Will Ottawa seize the moment for energy security or let politics stall progress?

The ongoing threats posed by U.S. tariffs on the Canadian economy have caused many Canadians to reconsider the need for national oil pipelines and other major resource projects.

The United States is Canada’s most significant trading partner, and the two countries have enjoyed over a century of peaceful commerce and good relations. However, the onset of tariffs and increasingly hostile rhetoric has made Canadians realize they should not be taking these good relations for granted.

Traditional opposition to energy development has given way to a renewed focus on energy security and domestic self-reliance. Over the last decade, Canadian energy producers have sought to build pipelines to move oil from landlocked Alberta to tidewater, aiming to reduce reliance on U.S. markets and expand exports internationally. Canada’s dependence on the U.S. for energy exports has long affected the prices it can obtain.

One province where this shift is becoming evident is Quebec. Historically, Quebec politicians and environmental interests have vehemently opposed oil and gas development. With an abundance of hydroelectric power, imported oil and gas, and little fossil fuel production, the province has had fewer economic incentives to support the industry.

However, recent polling suggests attitudes are changing. A SOM-La Presse poll from late February found that about 60 per cent of Quebec residents support reviving the Energy East pipeline project, while 61 per cent favour restarting the GNL Quebec natural gas pipeline project, a proposed LNG facility near Saguenay that would export liquefied natural gas to global markets. While support for these projects remains stronger in other parts of the country, this represents a substantial shift in Quebec.

Yet, despite this change, Quebec politicians at both the provincial and federal levels remain out of step with public opinion. The Montreal Economic Institute, a non-partisan think tank, has documented this disconnect for years. There are two key reasons for it: Quebec politicians tend to reflect the perspectives of a Montreal-based Laurentian elite rather than broader provincial sentiment, and entrenched interests such as Hydro-Québec benefit from limiting competition under the guise of environmental concerns.

Not only have Quebec politicians misrepresented public opinion, but they have also claimed to speak for the entire province on energy issues. Premier François Legault and Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet have argued that pipeline projects lack “social licence” from Quebecers.

However, the reality is that the federal government does not need any special license to build oil and gas infrastructure that crosses provincial borders. Under the Constitution, only the federal Parliament has jurisdiction over national pipeline and energy projects.

Despite this authority, no federal government has been willing to impose such a project on a province. Quebec’s history of resisting federal intervention makes this a politically delicate issue. There is also a broader electoral consideration: while it is possible to form a federal government without winning Quebec, its many seats make it a crucial battleground. In a bilingual country, a government that claims to speak for all Canadians benefits from having a presence in Quebec.

Ottawa could impose a national pipeline, but it doesn’t have to. New polling data from Quebec and across Canada suggest Canadians increasingly support projects that enhance energy security and reduce reliance on the United States. The federal government needs to stop speaking only to politicians—especially in Quebec—and take its case directly to the people.

With a federal election on the horizon, politicians of all parties should put national pipelines and natural gas projects on the ballot.

Joseph Quesnel is a senior research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.