We The People Are The Boss

Remember. In the USofA YOU are the BOSS.

Our core aims:
A government you cannot buy * A People’s Economy * A.I. that benefits all * An end to manufactured hate, fear and outrage * A USA that is collaborative, generous and trustworthy

Government Funding and Benefits for Elon Musk’s Companies (2005-2025)

Introduction

Over the past 20 years, Elon Musk’s business ventures – including Tesla (and its acquired SolarCity division), SpaceX, Neuralink, and The Boring Company – have received significant support from U.S. federal and state governments via direct subsidies and funding (grants, loans, contracts) as well as indirect benefits (tax credits, regulatory incentives, discounted facilities, etc.). A 2015 investigation found that Musk’s companies had already received about $4.9 billion in government support as of that year (benton.org). Since then, that figure has grown substantially, especially through large NASA and military contracts for SpaceX and continued tax incentives benefiting Tesla. Below is a detailed breakdown by company – including total dollar amounts (where available) and categories of government support, with clear distinctions between federal and state contributions and direct vs. indirect benefits – with all information drawn from reputable sources such as government records, independent analyses, and major media investigations (citations provided).

Below is a consolidated “all-in” estimate of both direct government funding (contracts, grants, loans, tax abatements, etc.) and indirect/“value-based” benefits (such as regulatory credits, consumer tax credits that boost sales, or discounted use of government infrastructure). Because some figures are prospective (e.g., contract ceilings not yet fully paid out) and others are inherently hard to pin down (e.g., the exact value of regulatory credits to Tesla), analysts typically provide a range rather than an exact final sum.

1. Direct Support (Roughly $20–$30 B)

  1. SpaceX

    • NASA and DoD Contracts:

      • NASA: Over $13 billion awarded and paid so far (Commercial Cargo, Commercial Crew, Artemis HLS, other launches).
      • Department of Defense: Several billion in awarded National Security Space Launch and related contracts, with potential future contract ceilings that push total authorized amounts even higher.
    • Total to Date (SpaceX): Around $15–$20 billion paid or very likely to be paid under existing contracts.

  2. Tesla (Including SolarCity)

    • Federal DOE Loan (2010): $465 million (repaid in 2013, but still a below-market loan).
    • Federal and State EV/solar consumer tax credits: Not counted as checks written to Tesla—but they power Tesla’s growth.
    • Direct State/Local Subsidies for Factories:

      • Nevada: $1.3 billion incentive package for the battery Gigafactory.
      • New York: $750 million facility and equipment for SolarCity.
      • Texas: $60+ million in tax breaks for Gigafactory Austin.
      • California: Tens of millions in sales-tax exemptions, plus job-training funds.
    • Federal Solar Incentives (SolarCity): Over $1.5 billion in Section 1603 cash grants and Investment Tax Credits through 2015; more has accrued after 2015.
    • Total to Date (Tesla): In aggregate, several billion ($5–$8 billion) when you combine the DOE loan subsidy, direct state incentive packages, and other direct or quasi-direct government grants for solar.

  3. The Boring Company

    • Las Vegas Convention Center Loop: $48.7 million contract with a local government authority.
    • No major subsidies otherwise.

  4. Neuralink

    • No known government contracts or direct grants to date.

When you add up SpaceX (the largest chunk), Tesla/SolarCity, and smaller amounts for The Boring Company, the direct government “cash value” (contracts, subsidies, etc.) realistically falls in the $20–$30 billion range over roughly two decades. Much of this total—particularly SpaceX’s share—derives from federal contracts that pay for launch or R&D services NASA/DoD would have otherwise purchased from other aerospace contractors.

2. Indirect or Value-Based Benefits (Another $10 B+)

  1. Tesla Emissions Credits:

    • Owing to state and federal environmental rules (Zero-Emission Vehicle mandates, CAFE standards, etc.), Tesla sells regulatory credits to other automakers. The cumulative revenue from these credits exceeds $10 billion. While these aren’t taxpayer-funded “checks,” they stem directly from government policy that compels less-compliant manufacturers to buy credits.

  2. Consumer Tax Credits / Rebates:

    • Buyers of Tesla EVs have used billions in federal $7,500 tax credits (now shifting under new legislation) plus state-level rebates. Similarly, many SolarCity customers used the federal solar Investment Tax Credit to offset project costs. These incentives are not paid to Tesla directly but enhance Tesla’s sales volume—a major indirect value.

  3. Access to Government Facilities (SpaceX):

    • SpaceX leases and uses NASA/USAF launch infrastructure (Pads 39A, 40, Vandenberg facilities, etc.) at favorable terms—the intangible value runs into hundreds of millions of dollars in avoided costs, at least.

Though harder to put a precise figure on, indirect benefits for Elon Musk’s companies conservatively surpass $10 billion over the last 15–20 years, with emissions credits alone accounting for that threshold.

3. Consolidated Estimate: ~$30–$40 B Overall

If you combine:

  • $20–$30 billion in direct government funding (federal contracts, state incentive packages, tax abatements, etc.), plus
  • $10 billion or more in indirect/regulatory-driven benefits (emissions credits, consumer EV/solar tax credits, and preferential facility use),

you arrive at $30–$40 billion in total U.S. government-derived support—broadly defined—across all Musk-affiliated companies over the last two decades.

Key Caveats

  • These totals include money paid by the government for services (e.g., NASA launches) as well as more traditional “subsidies” (tax breaks, grants, etc.).
  • Not all contract ceiling amounts are fully paid yet—some are “awarded” but contingent on mission orders or contract options.
  • Regulatory credits are an industry transfer mandated by government policy (paid by other automakers, not by the Treasury), but typically counted by analysts as part of “government-driven” or “government-enabled” support.
  • The consumer tax credits for EVs/solar do not go directly into Musk’s companies’ bank accounts but significantly boost demand and are widely considered a government benefit to the company’s bottom line.

Given these nuances, $30–$40 billion is a fair ballpark of the total benefits Elon Musk’s companies have realized from U.S. government action—both in terms of direct taxpayer-funded expenditures and policy-driven, value-based incentives.

Tesla, Inc. (Electric Vehicles and SolarCity Energy)

Tesla and its energy subsidiary (formerly SolarCity) have benefited from a mix of federal loans, tax credits, and state-level incentives. For example, in 2010 Tesla received a $465 million low-interest loan from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program (independent.co.uk), which helped build the Model S. The loan was repaid in 2013, though the below-market interest represented an estimated $45 million subsidy value to Tesla (electrek.co). Aside from this, Tesla has had only minimal direct federal contracts (around $4.5 million for government purchases such as power systems or vehicles independent.co.uk).

  • Federal Tax Credits (Electric Vehicles): U.S. buyers of Tesla cars have received federal EV tax credits which indirectly benefit Tesla by boosting vehicle sales – an estimated $3.4 billion in federal tax credits was used by Tesla customers through 2019 (independent.co.uk), with Tesla buyers qualifying for a $7,500 federal credit per vehicle until the cap was reached (and smaller credits during the phase-out period electrek.co).

  • State and Local Incentives (Manufacturing and Facilities): Tesla has secured major state incentive packages for building its factories. In Nevada (2014), Tesla accepted a $1.29 billion incentive package to locate its battery “Gigafactory” near Reno (electrek.co). In New York, SolarCity (later acquired by Tesla) received about $750 million to build a solar panel factory in Buffalo, with the state also effectively exempting the facility from property taxes (an estimated $260 million value over 10 years electrek.co), though Tesla later fell short of job creation targets (prospect.org). In Texas (2020), Tesla chose Austin for a new car factory (“Giga Texas”) after receiving roughly $64 million in state and county tax breaks (prospect.org). In California, Tesla benefited from multiple state programs, including approximately $90 million in sales tax exemptions on manufacturing equipment for its Fremont auto plant (electrek.co), along with $0.65 million in job-training reimbursement grants (electrek.co).

  • Consumer Incentives (State and Local EV Credits): At the consumer level, California’s clean vehicle rebate program issued rebates (initially $2,500 per car), totaling about $38 million for Tesla Model S buyers through 2015 (electrek.co). Other states such as Colorado and New York have offered similar rebates or credits.

  • Energy and Solar Incentives: Tesla’s energy division (ex-SolarCity) has been a major beneficiary of renewable energy incentives. Federal Solar Subsidies: Since 2006, SolarCity/Tesla projects have drawn on the federal 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar installations – through 2015, this amounted to an estimated $1.5 billion in federal tax credits (including at least $497 million received as cash grants from the U.S. Treasury under Section 1603; see electrek.co). This support continued beyond 2015 as the ITC was extended and renewed at 30% in 2022, likely adding another ~$1 billion+ from 2016–2025. State/Local Solar Incentives: SolarCity also tapped various state-level subsidies – for example, receiving $5.6 million in Oregon tax credits and rebates (electrek.co) and benefiting from programs like California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), which had provided an estimated $126 million (as of 2015) in rebates for Tesla energy storage projects (electrek.co).

  • Regulatory Credits (Indirect Revenue): Government environmental regulations have created a lucrative credit market benefiting Tesla. Thanks to zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates and fuel-economy standards, Tesla earns credits for each EV sold and sells surplus credits to other automakers – having earned roughly $10.7 billion in revenue from selling emissions credits over the past decade (eenews.net electrek.co). These credits – which are paid by less-compliant automakers rather than taxpayers – accounted for about a third of Tesla’s total profits over the last ten years (eenews.net).

Tesla – Summary: Combining direct U.S. government funding (loans, grants, and contracts) and major tax incentives, Tesla and SolarCity have benefited from an estimated $5–6 billion in federal support (DOE loan, federal EV and solar tax credits/grants) and roughly $2–3 billion in state and local support (incentives in Nevada, New York, California, Texas, etc.). In addition, Tesla has realized over $10 billion in regulatory credit revenue from government environmental policies (eenews.net). In total (including indirect regulatory benefits), Tesla’s government-derived benefits easily exceed $15 billion since 2005, with indirect regulatory incentives comprising the largest portion of that sum.

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX/Starlink)

SpaceX has grown into a major NASA and defense contractor, translating into billions of dollars in federal payments for launch services and development contracts, alongside some state-level incentives. NASA Contracts: NASA has been SpaceX’s single largest customer – over the past decade, SpaceX has earned more than $13 billion from NASA contracts, making it NASA’s second-largest contractor (after Caltech, which manages NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab) (goodmorningamerica.com). Key NASA programs include:

  • Commercial Cargo: In 2008, SpaceX won a $1.6 billion contract under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program to deliver cargo to the International Space Station, later extended with additional missions (benton.org).

  • Commercial Crew: In 2014, NASA awarded SpaceX $2.6 billion to develop the Crew Dragon capsule for astronaut transport to the ISS – part of the Commercial Crew Program (in parallel with Boeing’s contract). By 2022, NASA had extended SpaceX’s crew transport contract to a total of about $4.93 billion (reuters.com and nasa.gov).

  • Artemis Moon Program: In 2021, NASA selected SpaceX to build the lunar landing system for astronauts under Artemis. This Human Landing System (HLS) award is worth $2.9 billion for SpaceX’s Starship-based lunar lander (goodmorningamerica.com). SpaceX also received a contract in 2022 worth up to $843 million to develop a specialized Starship to de-orbit the International Space Station (goodmorningamerica.com).

  • Other NASA Awards: SpaceX benefited from earlier NASA seed funding – for instance, receiving ~ $396 million under the 2006–2010 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program for developing its Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule (benton.org). In addition, over 2015–2024, SpaceX’s NASA contract awards doubled from roughly ~$1.1B in FY2020 to $3.7B in FY2024 (goodmorningamerica.com), illustrating the rapid increase in NASA’s reliance on SpaceX.

  • Military and Other Federal Contracts: SpaceX is a significant launch provider for the U.S. Department of Defense and other agencies. Since gaining Air Force certification in 2015, SpaceX has won numerous National Security Space Launch contracts – over the past decade, securing over $5.6 billion in DoD launch contracts (with the U.S. Air Force/Space Force and the National Reconnaissance Office) (independent.co.uk). In 2020, SpaceX was awarded 40% of a multi-year Air Force launch procurement contract (Phase 2) valued at several billions, with potential future DoD contracts having a total value up to roughly $32.8 billion (independent.co.uk).

  • Other Agencies: SpaceX has smaller contracts with agencies such as the U.S. Air Force, Space Force, and intelligence agencies for satellite launches (with some details classified), and minor contracts for providing Starlink satellite internet service to the U.S. government (e.g., agreements with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Commerce, totaling only a few million dollars) (independent.co.uk).

  • Federal Broadband Subsidy: In 2020, SpaceX’s Starlink unit was awarded $885 million under the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund to subsidize satellite broadband in rural areas (benton.org). Note that in August 2022 the FCC revoked this provisional award after determining that SpaceX’s service did not meet evolving requirements.

  • State and Local Incentives: SpaceX has received relatively modest state-level subsidies. In Texas (2014), it was offered around $15 million from the Texas Enterprise Fund plus additional local incentives to build a commercial spaceport in Boca Chica, Texas. In total, SpaceX received about $20 million for its South Texas launch facility (electrek.co). Other facilities, such as those in Southern California and Florida, have benefited from local tax breaks or lease arrangements.

  • Use of Government Infrastructure (Indirect Benefit): Beyond direct funding, SpaceX benefits from access to government-owned infrastructure. NASA and the U.S. Air Force allow SpaceX to use launch sites – for example, Kennedy Space Center’s Pad 39A and Cape Canaveral’s Launch Complex 40 – under lease agreements that often involve nominal rent or shared upgrade costs. This indirect support has been crucial to SpaceX’s development and is part of NASA’s strategy to partner with commercial providers.

SpaceX – Summary: Thanks to NASA and military contracts, SpaceX has received massive federal funding for its launch services. In the last decade alone, Musk’s companies (primarily SpaceX) have been awarded at least $18 billion in federal contracts (goodmorningamerica.com with SpaceX accounting for about $17 billion of that total since 2015, including over $13 billion from NASA and additional billions from DoD contracts (independent.co.uk)).

Neuralink

Neuralink, the neurotechnology company founded by Musk in 2016 to develop brain-machine interfaces, has not received notable U.S. government funding to date. Its funding has come primarily from private investors and Musk’s own capital, totaling about $680 million in venture funding as of 2023 (from-the-interface.com). Unlike other brain-computer interface startups, Neuralink has not relied on DARPA or NIH grants (from-the-interface.com), and no federal contracts or subsidies have been awarded to it. In short, Neuralink’s government support is essentially zero in dollar terms.

The Boring Company

The Boring Company, Musk’s tunneling and infrastructure venture (founded in 2016), has seen limited government funding, with most projects being small-scale or privately financed. The most significant government-related deal is the Las Vegas Convention Center Loop – in 2019, the company won a $48.7 million contract from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority to design and build a twin-tunnel people mover beneath the Convention Center (cnbc.com and en.wikipedia.org). This project was completed in 2021 and was funded by a local tourism agency. Although The Boring Company is now expanding the tunnel loop in Las Vegas, the broader project is being financed privately. Other proposed transit tunnel projects in cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago have not received public funding, and aside from the Las Vegas project, no federal, state, or local subsidies have been awarded to the company.

The Boring Company – Summary: Total direct government spending on The Boring Company’s projects is on the order of $50 million (cnbc.com). There have been no major tax breaks or subsidies reported, and any indirect benefits have been limited to expedited permits or local government cooperation.

Total Government Support Summary (2005-2025)

In aggregate, Elon Musk’s companies have benefited from tens of billions of dollars in government support over the last two decades. By 2015, the total was at least $4.9 billion (benton.org), primarily driven by Tesla, SolarCity, and early NASA contracts for SpaceX. In the following decade, SpaceX’s federal contracts surged (over $17 billion since 2015 as reported by goodmorningamerica.com), while Tesla’s growth was fueled by additional tax incentives and state subsidies. Overall, when accounting for direct government outlays and obligations (contracts, grants, loans, and tax abatements), Musk’s enterprises have likely received on the order of $20–30 billion from U.S. federal and state governments, including approximately:

  • SpaceX: ~$15–20 billion in paid or committed federal contracts (NASA, DoD) (goodmorningamerica.com, independent.co.uk and electrek.co), plus additional millions in state incentives.
  • Tesla (incl. SolarCity): Several billion in federal loans and tax credits (e.g. $465M DOE loan, ~$3.4B in EV credits, ~$1.5B+ in solar ITC grants) along with a few billion more in state subsidies (e.g. Nevada $1.3B, New York $750M, Texas $64M, etc.).
  • Boring Company: Approximately ~$50M in local contracts (cnbc.com).
  • Neuralink: ~$0 in government funding.

In addition to these direct funds, Musk’s companies have reaped indirect benefits from government policies – for example, Tesla’s estimated $10+ billion in emissions credit revenues driven by environmental regulations (eenews.net) and billions in tax incentives that boosted sales. Overall, U.S. government support – through contracts, subsidies, and policy incentives – has exceeded $20 billion for Elon Musk’s ventures, with indirect regulatory benefits adding roughly another $10 billion.

All figures are drawn from official records and reputable analyses, illustrating the large role public funding has played in the rise of Tesla’s clean tech empire and SpaceX’s space endeavors (benton.org goodmorningamerica.com).

References (Sources)

  • Los Angeles Times (via Good Jobs First) – “Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies.” (2015) (benton.org).
  • Electrek – Breakdown of LA Times $4.9B figure by company (Tesla, SolarCity, SpaceX) (2015) (electrek.co, electrek.co, electrek.co).
  • Good Jobs First – Subsidy Tracker: Data on Tesla and SpaceX state/federal subsidy amounts (benton.org).
  • ABC News / GMA: Federal contract totals for SpaceX and Tesla (2015–2024), NASA contract ranking (2025) (goodmorningamerica.com>, goodmorningamerica.com).
  • The Independent (UK): “How many billions Elon Musk’s companies are making from U.S. taxpayers” – analysis of USASpending data (Feb 2025) (independent.co.uk, independent.co.uk).
  • E&E News (Politico): “Tesla built Musk’s vast wealth through climate credits.” (Jan 2025) – on total emissions credits earnings (eenews.net).
  • Benton Institute / Politico: “Musk spurns subsidies after SpaceX sought them out.” (Dec 2021) – notes on SpaceX’s FCC rural broadband award and LA Times $4.9B report (benton.org>, benton.org).
  • The American Prospect: “Tax Breaks Cushion Tesla’s Texas Landing.” (Apr 2022) – on Texas $64M incentives for Tesla (prospect.org, prospect.org).
  • CNBC / LVCVA Press Release: Las Vegas Convention Center Loop contract value (2019) (cnbc.com).
  • From the Interface (Pooja Rao): Neuralink funding (private vs. government grants in the BCI industry) (from-the-interface.com).

Below is an explanation of how overlapping data can arise and the precautions typically taken to avoid double-counting when compiling aggregated subsidy, contract, and incentive figures. This background may clarify the degree of confidence we can have in not unintentionally double-counting.

1. Potential Overlaps and Double-Counting Risks

  1. Multi-Year Contracts vs. Yearly Outlays

    • For major government contracts (particularly with SpaceX), sources often cite the total contract value (if all contract options are exercised) alongside the actual obligated/paid amount to date. If an article references the total potential contract value and another references the sum of yearly outlays or incremental contract awards, it’s possible to overstate the total by counting both.

  2. Different Levels of Incentives for the Same Project

    • In Tesla’s case, one source might cite the headline amount of a subsidy package (e.g., $1.3 billion for the Nevada Gigafactory) while another might break that total down into state sales-tax exemptions, property-tax abatements, transferable tax credits, etc. Counting each subcomponent plus the headline amount could inflate the real figure.

  3. Grants vs. Tax Credits

    • SolarCity/Tesla’s solar incentives come from the federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and sometimes Treasury 1603 direct cash grants. If a source lumps “federal solar incentives” into a single figure, and another source gives the 1603 program figure separately, adding them together incorrectly can double-count part of the same incentive.

  4. Federal vs. State vs. Local

    • Sometimes, a single project is funded in part by the federal government and in part by state/local government. For example, a local government might fund land or infrastructure upgrades for a NASA center, while NASA provides direct payments to SpaceX. If a source cites the local portion and another source cites NASA’s portion, each is separate. But a source could group them together if they consider the entire “government outlay” for one project.

2. How Researchers (and the Referenced Analyses) Typically Prevent Double-Counting

  1. Separating Direct Federal Spending from State/Local Spending

    • Most reliable analyses clearly distinguish federal contract obligations (NASA, DoD, etc.) from state/local tax incentives (like Nevada’s or New York’s deals with Tesla). When combining them, researchers aim to check for duplication or overlap.

  2. Cross-Referencing Original Government Sources

    • Data on federal contracts typically come from USASpending.gov (or NASA/DoD contract announcements). State and local incentives often come from Good Jobs First’s Subsidy Tracker or from official announcements/budgets. Because these sources categorize spending differently, analysts match contract numbers (e.g., IDIQ contract identifiers, appropriation line items) to ensure they’re not summing multiple references to the same award.

  3. Breaking Out “Committed” vs. “Disbursed”

    • Some sources track the actual money disbursed so far, while others list “up to” or “not to exceed” amounts. Combining these carefully usually prevents double-counting. If a contract was originally $2.6 billion but was later extended to $4.9 billion, that should reflect one continuous contract rather than two separate ones.

  4. Maintaining a Company-by-Company (or Project-by-Project) Ledger

    • Many aggregated studies (e.g., the LA Times 2015 investigation) took each known subsidy or contract and systematically listed them in a table (with references to the awarding agency, date, contract number, etc.). That approach helps ensure that each item is counted only once.

3. Level of Confidence in the Aggregated Figures

  • High Confidence for Well-Documented Major Items:
    The largest single chunks—like Tesla’s $1.3 billion deal from Nevada or NASA’s multi-billion-dollar commercial crew/cargo contracts—are well documented in official sources. The potential for double-counting within these headline figures is relatively small if the data is derived from direct government announcements and carefully enumerated.

  • Moderate Confidence on Additional Minor Programs:
    When you look at smaller incentives—like local tax breaks worth a few million, workforce training funds, or incremental contract modifications—they can be referenced in multiple articles under slightly different names. Researchers usually catch these overlaps by verifying the official awarding body’s records. However, there’s always a non-zero risk of a small overlap if multiple sources used slightly different cutoff dates or aggregated multiple line items.

  • Potential Ambiguities Around Future or “Option” Funds:
    Especially in the case of SpaceX, the line between “awarded” vs. “funded so far” can be blurry. If a contract includes options (i.e., future launches or optional mission task orders), some sources might cite the entire value, and others might only note the portion NASA or the military has actually obligated to date. There’s a risk of double-counting if you inadvertently sum both the base award and incremental modifications. However, analysts typically treat these as separate references and only combine them into a single net figure (e.g., total “ceiling” of a contract).

4. Example of Checking for Overlaps in the Final Summary

  • Tesla: $465M DOE Loan

    • This is distinct from all the state subsidies and from the consumer tax credits for EV purchases. No overlap should occur because the loan principal is documented by the DOE, and the consumer tax credits are from the IRS.

  • Nevada’s $1.3B Package

    • Cited as the official state legislation for Tesla’s Gigafactory. That same $1.3B might sometimes be broken down into $725M in tax abatements plus $300M in transferable tax credits, etc. Reputable sources (e.g., the LA Times, Good Jobs First) keep these as sub-components of the same $1.3B total.

  • NASA Contracts for SpaceX (e.g., $2.6B in 2014 for Commercial Crew)

    • Later extended to $4.9B. The correct total is $4.9B, not $2.6B + $4.9B = $7.5B. We rely on NASA’s official contract modifications to avoid double-counting.

  • SolarCity’s Federal ITC vs. State Rebates

    • Federal ITC (30% of installed cost) is separate from a state or local incentive. Some references might mention the total cost offset for a project (federal + state combined). As long as we label them carefully, we won’t double-count.

5. Conclusion: Overall Confidence Statement

  • Overall, the major, well-publicized figures (the big federal contracts, state incentive packages, and headline DOE loan) are unlikely to be double-counted because they come from discrete, official sources (e.g., NASA press releases, state legislature bills).

  • There’s always a small chance that certain smaller incentives or incremental contract modifications may appear in multiple sources under different names or time frames, but serious investigations (like the LA Times, Good Jobs First, or specialized think-tanks) typically maintain itemized lists to mitigate that risk.

  • Hence, one can be reasonably confident (though never 100% guaranteed) that the final tallies do not double-count major items. The most common pitfall is mixing up contract ceilings vs. awarded funds, or combining sub-incentives with total deal values. When properly vetted against official announcements, the risk of duplicative counting is minimal.

In summary, the best-known estimates from reputable analyses have already done the legwork to prevent double-counting, especially with the largest subsidies and contracts. While it’s never possible to guarantee with absolute certainty that no minor overlap exists—particularly in the smaller or less-publicized incentives—careful cross-referencing of government documents and item-by-item listings gives a high degree of confidence that the final aggregate numbers reported are free of significant double-counting.