Elon Musk Clashes with CNBC's Faber Over DOGE's Controversial Spending Cuts

Elon Musk's brief tenure as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, commonly referred to as DOGE, has been marked by controversy and debate. Established under the Trump administration, DOGE was designed to streamline government operations and reduce federal spending. Musk, known for his groundbreaking work with Tesla and SpaceX, was an unexpected choice to lead this initiative. His leadership in DOGE has been characterized by bold claims of cost savings, though these have been contested. In a contentious CNBC interview with David Faber, Musk asserted that DOGE had achieved staggering savings of $160 billion. However, this figure was met with skepticism and countered by sources, including Musk's AI chatbot Grok, which suggested savings closer to $5 billion to $32 billion. The discrepancy not only sparked debate over the efficiency of DOGE but also cast doubt on the transparency and accountability of the initiative. Critics argue that the actual impact of DOGE has been minimal when compared to Musk's claims, raising questions about the government's continued reliance on the project [0](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5310122‑elon‑musk‑tensions‑cnbc‑interview/).

During a high‑stakes CNBC interview, Elon Musk and David Faber clashed over the accomplishments of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk, known for his leadership in several technological ventures, took on an unexpected role in government to spearhead this Trump administration initiative, which aimed at slashing federal expenditure. The interview quickly turned tense when Faber scrutinized Musk's claims of achieving $160 billion in savings, a figure Musk stood by despite Faber presenting contrasting reports from sources including Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, which suggested much lower savings [¹].

The tense atmosphere during the CNBC interview was not just about numbers. It epitomized the public's divided opinion on Musk's efficiency drive and his broader influence. Critics often question the transparency and cost‑saving narratives that Musk propagates through DOGE, while avid supporters see him as a disruptive force capable of transforming bureaucratic systems. The heated exchange between Musk and Faber underscored this divide, with both parties holding steadfast to their perspectives amidst rising stakes and scrutiny [¹].

Beyond DOGE, the interview briefly touched on Musk's commitments to Tesla, with discussions revolving around the company's future and Musk's role despite potential leadership transitions. His unequivocal assertion to remain Tesla's CEO for at least five more years addresses ongoing concerns about divided attention between his ventures. This commitment comes amidst Tesla's fluctuating market performance, further compounded by external pressures and predicted shifts within the automotive industry toward more autonomous technology [¹].

Musk's leadership in both DOGE and Tesla reflects a unique interplay between government responsibilities and private enterprise innovation. His navigating of dual roles also raises broader questions about the efficacy of such cross‑sectorial engagement in achieving large‑scale systemic changes [¹]. The CNBC exchange serves as a microcosm of the larger debates surrounding Musk's multi‑faceted impact, challenging traditional views on leadership, corporate governance, and public accountability.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has captured attention due to its bold mission of cutting federal spending, with Elon Musk at the helm. Appointed by the Trump administration, Musk is tasked with steering this initiative, bringing his distinct leadership style from the tech industry to the governmental realm. DOGE's aim is not only to reduce unnecessary expenditure but also to foster a culture of accountability and efficiency within federal agencies. Musk's involvement is seen as a nod to his reputation for innovation and disruption, characteristics that have defined his ventures like Tesla and SpaceX. The assignment to lead DOGE aligns with the administration's broader goals of downsizing government operations and optimizing resource allocation, a vision that Musk has openly embraced despite challenges and controversies surrounding the actual savings achieved so far. According to an interview with CNBC, these efforts have been a point of contention, with Musk asserting significant budget cuts while critics question the reported figures and the initiative’s overall efficacy.¹

Elon Musk's leadership in DOGE has been marked by both assertive decision‑making and external scrutiny. Known for his unorthodox management style and ambitious goals, Musk's role in the public sector through DOGE presents an intriguing study of cross‑sector leadership dynamics. His commitment to DOGE also extends beyond mere financial efficiency; Musk has often spoken about reducing bureaucratic inertia and instilling a sense of urgency in achieving governmental objectives. However, the tense CNBC interview revealed underlying frictions regarding Musk's leadership claims and the tangible outcomes of DOGE’s initiatives, magnifying public and media scrutiny.¹

Despite its ambitious objectives, DOGE has not been immune to controversy and pushback. Critics argue that the proposed spending cuts may not be as substantial as Musk suggests, with discrepancies in reported figures being a major point of debate during his interview with David Faber. While Musk claimed $160 billion in cuts, others, including data from Musk’s AI chatbot, suggest a much lower range, raising questions about the transparency and effectiveness of the initiative.¹ This uncertainty has fueled political and public debate about the future of DOGE and Musk's ability to balance his multifaceted responsibilities effectively.

The tension between Elon Musk's proclaimed achievements with DOGE and external assessments reflects broader challenges in governmental efficiency reforms. The skepticism surrounding DOGE’s impact underscores the complexity of bureaucratic change and the difficulties in quantifying such efforts' success. This scenario is further complicated by Musk's concurrent commitments, such as his leadership at Tesla, which some argue might dilute his focus on achieving DOGE's goals. The balance between driving innovative governmental reform and managing successful private enterprises continues to be a tightrope act for Musk, as highlighted in his engaging but contentious CNBC interview.¹

The debate surrounding the fiscal achievements of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk raises essential questions about governmental transparency and accountability. During a CNBC interview, Musk asserted that DOGE had managed to reduce federal spending by an impressive $160 billion. However, this claim was met with skepticism as journalist David Faber, citing sources including Musk's AI chatbot Grok, suggested a much lower range of $5 billion to $32 billion in savings. This significant discrepancy has sparked discussions about the metrics and methodologies employed by DOGE in reporting these figures and whether these methods have been employed consistently across government departments.¹

Elon Musk's claim of $160 billion in savings from DOGE's initiatives is more than just a number; it represents a promise of transformative government efficiency that some critics argue remains unfulfilled. The alleged savings disparities are central to a heated dialogue about the accuracy and reliability of the figures presented by government agencies. While Musk argues for the success and efficiency of DOGE, critics quickly point out the absence of full transparency and public reporting that substantiates these numbers. A nonpartisan analysis even suggested that instead of achieving savings, DOGE's policies might have incurred costs to taxpayers due to factors like paid leave and productivity losses.² This analysis highlights the need for rigorous, independent financial audits to truly understand the impact of DOGE's policies.

The contrasting figures between Musk's claims and the counterarguments posed in the interview underscore a broader conversation about the efficacy of strategic reforms purportedly implemented by DOGE. Critics argue that while the intention of streamlining government operations and cutting unnecessary expenditures is noble, the execution has left much to be desired. Allegations that some of the savings could be illusory, offset by the indirect costs such as employment impacts and reduced federal services, have been met with denial from the administration. Nonetheless, this topic remains a fertile ground for policy and political debate, influencing public sentiment and perceptions about the efficiency of governmental reforms.¹

As the situation unfolds, the disparity in claimed savings highlights the complex nature of governmental fiscal policy and the difficulties in implementing broad‑ranging fiscal reforms. The experts, and indeed the public, are divided on whether DOGE's claimed achievements reflect genuine financial stewardship or represent a facade for broader political or economic agendas. Political analysts suggest that the ongoing legal and policy challenges facing DOGE, along with Musk's decreasing involvement, add further complexity to accurately assessing DOGE's long‑term impact and viability. The conversation around these issues continues to evolve, fueled by further media coverage and public scrutiny of Musk's leadership and the true scale of DOGE's successes and failures.³

The interview between Elon Musk and David Faber on CNBC was nothing short of electrifying. Focusing primarily on Musk's leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the session was filled with fiery exchanges that captivated both the live audience and viewers at home. At the core of the tension was a debate over the reported achievements of DOGE, with Musk asserting that the department had achieved spending cuts amounting to $160 billion. In contrast, Faber, drawing on alternative analyses such as insights from Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, proposed significantly lower figures ranging between $5 billion and $32 billion. This sharp divergence in reported achievements set the tone for a contentious back‑and‑forth. Elon Musk appeared visibly frustrated during the exchange, repeatedly accusing Faber of launching a targeted attack against his initiatives. This palpable tension underscored not only the high stakes of the interview but also the broader implications of DOGE's controversial fiscal policies. For more on this riveting interview, you can read the related article on.¹

The interview grew even more heated when the conversation shifted to Musk's broader impact beyond DOGE, including Tesla's operational outlook and the future of autonomous vehicles. David Faber pressed Musk on challenges facing Tesla, citing recent drops in sales figures and the public's reaction to Musk's increasingly politicized public persona. Despite these challenges, Musk remained resolute, expressing continued commitment to leading Tesla for the foreseeable future. However, concerns persisted regarding his ability to juggle these commitments alongside his strategic role at DOGE. These unresolved tensions reflect a deeper narrative about the sustainability of Musk's multifaceted ventures. The in‑depth coverage of the interview highlights Musk's attempts to balance his expansive responsibilities, visible in the CNBC coverage available at.¹

Within the realm of media, such interviews serve not only as platforms for dialogue but also as mirrors reflecting the broader societal and economic climates they are situated within. The Musk‑Faber face‑off was emblematic of an era characterized by intense political polarization and heightened scrutiny of government operations. It raised essential questions about transparency and accountability, particularly concerning large‑scale public spending initiatives like DOGE. The charged atmosphere of the interview, combined with Musk's assertive defense of DOGE's accomplishments, offered a rare glimpse into the dynamics of power, influence, and responsibility that characterize Musk's public life. As the conversation pressed on, the audience witnessed an intricate dance between journalistic inquiry and public relations strategy. For those interested in the intricate details of the discussion, further insights can be gleaned from The Hill.

In the evolving landscape of technology and automotive innovation, Tesla remains a focal point as it maneuvers challenges and opportunities beyond just the mechanics of its electric vehicles. As Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk's vision continues to propel the company towards ambitious goals, particularly in the autonomous vehicle sector, which experts like Dan Ives believe could substantially define Tesla's value in the future. The CNBC interview highlighted Musk's unwavering commitment to Tesla, even as he navigates the broader implications of his role with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) [0](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5310122‑elon‑musk‑tensions‑cnbc‑interview/).

Tesla's trajectory is not without its hurdles. The company recently faced a noteworthy decline in market performance, attributed to various factors including Musk's political positions and market anticipation of more economical Tesla models. Despite a 13% drop in first‑quarter deliveries, Tesla's capacity to bounce back is evident from the remarkable increase in Tesla China registrations [12](https://www.teslarati.com/tesla‑china‑registrations‑rise‑11k‑vehicles‑may‑2nd‑week/). This resilience underscores Tesla's potential to thrive in international markets, even as it contends with challenges at home.

The dual focus on DOGE and Tesla reflects Musk's audacious ambitions, stretching across government reform and cutting‑edge technology. His role in DOGE, while intended to streamline government efficiency, has elicited both commendation and criticism, especially given the controversial figures reported regarding federal savings. Musk's assertion of having reduced federal expenses by significant margins faced skepticism, as insights from AI such as his chatbot Grok presented more modest figures [0](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5310122‑elon‑musk‑tensions‑cnbc‑interview/).

Musk's capacity to concurrently handle his responsibilities with Tesla and DOGE also draws interest, as it suggests a potential rebalancing of priorities. With a renewed emphasis on Tesla's future in the realm of autonomous technologies, Musk may be strategically positioning himself to influence the next wave of automotive innovation. This focus aligns with ongoing efforts to enhance Tesla’s AI capabilities and deploy geofenced self‑driving tests, which could redefine expectations for autonomous vehicle safety and functionality [4](https://opentools.ai/news/elon‑musk‑reveals‑teslas‑ambitious‑ai‑and‑autonomous‑vision‑in‑cnbc‑interview).

The narrative surrounding Elon Musk and his enterprises often intertwines technological ambition with political theater. As Musk refines his role in both spheres, his actions draw scrutiny and admiration alike, creating a fascinating dynamic that could serve as a catalyst for major shifts within and beyond Tesla. The potential for significant developments, such as the speculated Starlink IPO, adds another layer of complexity and opportunity to Musk's already multifaceted portfolio [4](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2025/05/20/elon‑musk‑tesla‑ceo/83743601007/).

Elon Musk's commitment to Tesla, amid continuous speculation about his future as CEO, showcases his unwavering dedication to the company he helped build into a leader in the automotive and tech industries. Despite the intense scrutiny following his involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its controversial spending cuts, Musk has reiterated his intention to lead Tesla for at least the next five years. This assertion was also highlighted during a tense CNBC interview with David Faber, where Musk emphasized Tesla's promising outlook on autonomous vehicles, which could become a cornerstone of the company's future growth.¹

The speculation surrounding Tesla's leadership has been fueled by the company's recent challenges, including a significant slump in sales and market performance. First‑quarter deliveries fell by 13%, a decline partly attributed to the public's backlash against Musk's political views and anticipation of cost‑effective versions of the Model Y. However, positive signs have emerged, such as a notable increase in Tesla China registrations, hinting at the brand's resilience and potential for recovery.⁴ In response to these challenges and speculations, Musk's reaffirmation of his role at Tesla serves as a reassurance to stakeholders about his leadership and focus on navigating Tesla through turbulent times.

Musk's decision to reduce his time commitment to DOGE underscores his intent to refocus his energy on Tesla, an indication of prioritizing the core operations and future tech ambitions, including advancements in autonomous vehicle software and robotics. This shift also speaks volumes about Musk's strategic approach to handling his responsibilities, reflecting a move to consolidate his efforts where he sees the most potential for impactful progress. With extensive plans for expansion and innovation, Musk's commitment is central, as emphasized by Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, who views Tesla's technology‑focused trajectory as a major growth driver for the company [source].

Amidst the speculation of the Tesla board potentially seeking a new CEO, Musk's confident assertion of staying with Tesla, even as he juggles commitments with DOGE and explores opportunities like a Starlink IPO, adds an interesting layer to the company's future landscape. This commitment suggests that Musk envisions a long‑term strategy rather than a short‑term exit, providing some stability for investors and employees watching Tesla's trajectory amidst broader economic challenges. The possibility of an IPO for Starlink is a testament to Musk's ambitious plans that extend beyond Tesla, but it is clear that Tesla remains a priority in his multifaceted portfolio.⁴

The economic repercussions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk’s leadership are both significant and complex. At the forefront is the disparity in the figures regarding DOGE’s actual savings. Whereas Musk claims the initiative has saved $160 billion, others suggest numbers as low as between $5 billion and $32 billion. This discrepancy in the reported savings has substantial economic consequences. If the lower figures are accurate, it suggests that the cost‑cutting achievements are considerably less than what has been advertised, potentially leading to continued budget deficits and increased national debt. Such fiscal discrepancies undermine public trust and cast doubt on the transparency and accountability of DOGE’s operations. The broader economic implications could include potential instability, as job cuts—central to DOGE's operations—impact local economies reliant on federal employment, decreasing consumer spending, and stalling economic growth. Further complicating matters, reductions in government agencies such as the IRS could affect tax revenue collection, perpetuating a cycle of diminishing government income and rising debt. More details about these controversies and their implications can be found in a [related article](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5310122‑elon‑musk‑tensions‑cnbc‑interview/) detailing tensions from a significant CNBC interview with Elon Musk.

Elon Musk’s reduced involvement in DOGE brings both challenges and opportunities. Historically, Musk's leadership has been a driving force behind the initiative, pushing for radical spending cuts. However, his recent announcement to reduce his time commitment to DOGE raises questions about the future operational efficiency of the department. While this shift allows Musk to focus more on Tesla, it also leaves DOGE at a crossroads. The potential vacuum in leadership could lead to inefficiencies and unresolved budgetary issues if left unaddressed. These operational uncertainties further fuel skepticism about DOGE's effectiveness in implementing enduring fiscal policies. The future of DOGE may depend heavily on the recalibration of its leadership and operational strategies, which is a pivotal consideration for stakeholders observing the department’s trajectory. Insights and expert opinions on this matter can be explored in [national discussions](https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/17/politics/musk‑doge‑future) regarding the initiative’s future trajectory.

The social dynamics of unemployment and inequality are critical topics that highlight the intricate relationship between economic policies and societal well‑being. Unemployment often exacerbates existing inequalities, creating a cycle of disadvantage that is hard to break. When a significant portion of the population is unemployed, it leads to decreased consumer spending, strained social services, and heightened social unrest. This disparity not only stresses the fabric of communities but also emphasizes the need for policies that can balance economic efficiency with social equity. For instance, initiatives like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aim to cut federal spending, must carefully weigh the socioeconomic impacts of their actions, such as potential job losses and reductions in public services, to avoid further widening the inequality gap ([link](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5310122‑elon‑musk‑tensions‑cnbc‑interview/)).

In tackling unemployment and inequality, it's crucial to understand the delicate interplay between technological innovation and job displacement. While technological advancements promise increased productivity and new job opportunities, they also pose the risk of rendering certain job categories obsolete, contributing to structural unemployment. Policies should focus not only on harnessing technology for economic growth but also on retraining and upskilling the workforce to adapt to new industries and roles. This approach can help mitigate the adverse impacts of innovation on employment and provide pathways out of poverty for affected individuals. In the context of DOGE's efforts to streamline government operations, balancing efficiency with job preservation remains key to minimizing adverse social outcomes ([link](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5310122‑elon‑musk‑tensions‑cnbc‑interview/)).

Social inequality is not only a consequence but also a driver of unemployment. Inequalities in education, access to healthcare, and socioeconomic status often limit individuals' ability to secure stable employment, thus perpetuating a cycle of poverty. To break this cycle, comprehensive policies are needed that address these foundational inequities. Investments in education and training, equal access to job opportunities, and social safety nets are vital in enabling all citizens to contribute to and benefit from economic growth. The ongoing debates around DOGE highlight the importance of integrating such social considerations into economic policy decisions, emphasizing that efficiency should not come at the expense of the vulnerable ([link](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5310122‑elon‑musk‑tensions‑cnbc‑interview/)).

Moreover, public perception plays a crucial role in how policies related to unemployment and inequality are received. Misinformation or lack of transparency can significantly impact public trust, particularly when policies are perceived to benefit only a small segment of society. For instance, the tensions evident in the CNBC interview with Elon Musk about DOGE's spending cuts illustrate the complexities involved in promoting government efficiency while maintaining public confidence in such measures. Open communication and data transparency are essential to ensuring that the public is fully informed about the intended and actual effects of such initiatives, thereby fostering a more inclusive dialogue between policymakers and citizens ([link](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5310122‑elon‑musk‑tensions‑cnbc‑interview/)).

Elon Musk's involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as its leader has sparked both interest and controversy in political circles. The initiative, part of the Trump administration's efforts to trim federal spending, places Musk at the helm of a highly scrutinized government body. His claim of reducing federal spending by $160 billion through DOGE has been met with skepticism. Critics, including David Faber in a tense CNBC interview, have countered these claims, citing much smaller figures of savings. Faber's questioning highlighted the lack of transparency in how these savings were calculated, raising significant doubts about the credibility of the reported achievements (¹).

The political landscape surrounding DOGE is further complicated by Musk's own public persona and his divided attention between his various business ventures, including Tesla and SpaceX. This duality surfaced during the CNBC interview with David Faber, where Musk's defensive stance against criticisms of DOGE's efficacy was evident. The argument broached topics beyond government efficiency, touching on Musk's control over Tesla and his future with the company. The tension underscored the complex interplay between Musk’s tech industry leadership and his political involvements, drawing nation‑wide attention to the interview (¹).

As DOGE navigates deep waters under Musk's stewardship, questions loom over its true impact on federal expenditure and overall government efficiency. The disparities in reported figures, as discussed in the interview, have fueled political debates over the initiative’s success and ethical governance. Musk's controversial leadership style, blending aggressive cost‑cutting with high‑profile public relations campaigns, invites both praise for taking bold steps and criticism for the potential social costs, including job losses and reduced public services. These outcomes have left many questioning the holistic benefit of DOGE's strategies (¹).

Beyond its political implications, Musk's involvement with DOGE and the related controversies shed light on broader societal divisions. His claims, often juxtaposed with contrasting data, have polarized opinions, drawing support from like‑minded political factions while alienating opponents. The CNBC interview further accentuated this divide, as Musk's confrontational approach with Faber drew both cheers and jeers. As the public and political analysts dissect the discourse, viewpoints remain split, with some lauding Musk's ambitious vision and others cautioning against potential overreach and exaggeration of achievements (¹).

The future implications and uncertainties surrounding Elon Musk's involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are multifaceted. Given the contrasting claims about the department’s savings, as reported in the CNBC interview, DOGE's long‑term impact remains in question. Musk’s assertion of having cut $160 billion from federal spending starkly contrasts with other assessments, which suggest much lower savings.,¹ the reliability of these figures is crucial to understanding the future trajectory of national fiscal policy and federal budget management.

Moreover, Musk's leadership and commitment to DOGE have already started to wane, as he announced a reduction in his active involvement, focusing only one or two days a week on the initiative. This shift raises uncertainties about the department's future effectiveness, especially given DOGE's ambitious goals to streamline government operations. ³ have indicated that Musk is channeling more energy back into Tesla, which may alter the strategic direction of DOGE, potentially diminishing its influence and impact.

The social implications of DOGE's initiatives are also significant. With job cuts affecting many federal workers, there is a growing concern about the social fabric and economic stability within communities reliant on government employment. This scenario can lead to increased unemployment and exacerbate social inequalities, fostering heightened public unrest and distrust in government policies. Critics argue that without transparency, the initiative's outcomes may worsen public sentiment and social stability.

Politically, the future for DOGE is fraught with challenges. The contentious issues spotlighted by the CNBC interview, such as discrepancies in reported savings and the nature of job cuts, could intensify political divisions. ³ associated with the initiative could further complicate its mandate, impacting its ability to achieve purported objectives. Additionally, with Musk’s dual commitments to Tesla and DOGE, the political discourse around his leadership and intentions, especially if the board's interest in a new CEO heightens, will surely influence DOGE's operational dynamics and public perception.

In essence, the sustainability and future success of DOGE will largely depend on how well it can navigate these economic, social, and political challenges. The department’s ability to continue effectively without Musk's full‑time leadership, handle the scrutiny regarding its financial claims, and manage the repercussions of its labor policies will all be pivotal. External oversight and a potential shift in federal approach under legislative pressure could redefine DOGE's operational ethos, making it imperative for the department to demonstrate transparency and accountability at all levels.

In analyzing the leadership challenges faced by Elon Musk, particularly in his dual roles with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Tesla, it becomes apparent that navigating such diverse responsibilities demands a nuanced approach. The recent CNBC interview illuminated the tensions inherent in balancing these commitments, as Musk engaged in a contentious discussion over DOGE's claimed fiscal achievements. Musk's assertion of a $160 billion cost‑saving was sharply contrasted by interviewer David Faber, who cited figures suggesting much smaller savings. This discrepancy not only highlights the challenges of transparency and accountability within DOGE but also underscores the broader complexities of managing public and media perceptions [¹].

Moreover, Musk's leadership at Tesla reveals additional layers of complexity. With concerns about divided attention between his roles at DOGE and Tesla, stakeholders are keenly observing how these commitments impact Tesla's strategic direction and operational focus. Despite affirming his commitment to leading Tesla for the foreseeable future, the backdrop of the DOGE initiative presents continuous hurdles. Critiques of DOGE's effectiveness and ongoing public discourse reflect broader questions about Musk's ability to simultaneously disrupt traditional sectors while fostering innovation. These leadership challenges are further compounded by varying public perceptions of his political involvement through DOGE, reflecting a polarized public opinion landscape [⁵].

The broader implications of Musk's dual role extend into several domains. Economically, the debate over DOGE's impact on government spending raises significant questions about fiscal responsibility and economic policy under Musk's influence. Socially, the initiatives led by DOGE have far‑reaching consequences, potentially exacerbating inequalities and affecting communities dependent on federal employment. Politically, the media coverage and public reactions serve as a barometer for the current climate of trust in government efficiency initiatives spearheaded by high‑profile individuals like Musk. Each of these facets interacts with the other, shaping the varied challenges Musk faces in his leadership roles [⁶].