There is a vast difference between being a government agency and having the government as a customer. NASA has no say on SpaceX's engineering practices, the exa

There is a vast difference between being a government agency and having the government as a customer. NASA has no say on SpaceX's engineering practices, the exact specifications beyond specified in the contract, or whether or not a senator's favourite supplier is used for certain parts. At the end of the day, SpaceX can choose to spend its profits however it pleases, whether that it on a stainless steel giant rocket or digging tunnels because the CEO is tired of sitting in traffic, without needing approval from any politician. You also would do well to read up on the details of SpaceX's financing. Private capital has contributed several billions to its funding - just earlier this year, they raised $1.9 billion. Several projects were entirely privately funded, including Falcon 1 and its engines, Falcon Heavy and until recently, Starship. Government funding is of a similar magnitude of course, but it is disingenuous to say it comprises the entirety of SpaceX's finances. As another poster said, just NASA's choice of using commercial operators (including Boeing) was hugely controversial, drawing skepticism even from Neil Armstrong and other astronauts. It's a massive departure from the previous approach where NASA would design the overall vehicle and subcontract portions of it to different subcontractors; instead, they're paying for a complete package that is owned by a private corporation that designed everything on their own down to the spacesuits.