Elon Musk and his little sidekick Vivek Ramaswamy are gearing up to redesign the federal government. Musk is the richest man on the planet; Vivek is only a multimillionaire. But together they are smarter than the rest of us.
Who elected them? Not me. Not you. No matter. Their patron Donald Trump has given them a drawing board and told them to have at it. Slash and burn. Cut and kill agencies and programs.
So they (or their PR team) wrote this article for the Wall Street Journal. Note: only Congress can create “departments,” but theirs was created overnight without Congress. Who needs Congress when we have two self-anointed geniuses to reshape our government?
President Trump has asked the two of us to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut the federal government down to size. The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.
We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.
In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies can’t impose regulations dealing with major economic or policy questions unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the court overturned the Chevron doctrine and held that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law or their own rulemaking authority. Together, these cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law.
DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies. DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.
When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress. The president owes lawmaking deference to Congress, not to bureaucrats deep within federal agencies. The use of executive orders to substitute for lawmaking by adding burdensome new rules is a constitutional affront, but the use of executive orders to roll back regulations that wrongly bypassed Congress is legitimate and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent mandates. And after those regulations are fully rescinded, a future president couldn’t simply flip the switch and revive them but would instead have to ask Congress to do so.
A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose positions are eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and DOGE’s goal is to help support their transition into the private sector. The president can use existing laws to give them incentives for early retirement and to make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit.
Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the statute allows for “reductions in force” that don’t target specific employees. The statute further empowers the president to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.” That power is broad. Previous presidents have used it to amend the civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court has held—in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they weren’t constrained by the Administrative Procedures Act when they did so. With this authority, Mr. Trump can implement any number of “rules governing the competitive service” that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.
Finally, we are focused on delivering cost savings for taxpayers. Skeptics question how much federal spending DOGE can tame through executive action alone. They point to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which stops the president from ceasing expenditures authorized by Congress. Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question. But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.
The federal government’s procurement process is also badly broken. Many federal contracts have gone unexamined for years. Large-scale audits conducted during a temporary suspension of payments would yield significant savings. The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency’s leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent. Critics claim that we can’t meaningfully close the federal deficit without taking aim at entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require Congress to shrink. But this deflects attention from the sheer magnitude of waste, fraud and abuse that nearly all taxpayers wish to end—and that DOGE aims to address by identifying pinpoint executive actions that would result in immediate savings for taxpayers.
With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government. We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail. Now is the moment for decisive action. Our top goal for DOGE is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026—the expiration date we have set for our project. There is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.

Government Of The Serfs, By The Twits, For The Twits
LikeLike
This is so scary!! You have two people with no real idea of how the government works. The corporate systems are different from the government systems. Neither care about how it will the whole country but only the optics of just a few.
LikeLike
start with Trump
“Trump visited a Trump Organizationproperty on 428 (nearly one in three) of the 1,461 days of his presidency and is estimated to have played 261 rounds of golf, one every 5.6 days.”
LikeLike
NOTHING less than ghastly. The document is overloaded with ways to squeeze through legal loopholes and VERY broad clues to the implementation of a totalitarian state–as Jon says above, by wealthy “twits” with no experience and the mentality of a two-year old–who can be selective about employing lawyers whose feet haven’t touched the ground of the spirit of the law, probably for decades.
I would only start by asking of the present regulations . . . which regulations of the ones they want to throw out were written for protecting “the people” that are affected by them? It refers to economic savings. But anyone with cancer in their entire family, or lead poisoning in their children, for instance, cares little about “the economy.” And one huge standout is the “hit” on Public Broadcasting.
The contempt for democracy and for the United States and its history is not even barely hidden. Books will be written about this, IF the Trumpism Takeover ever ends. And there is that scary idea running through it like a river: “We’re doing this, and we don’t care what you think about it.” They are in fact replacing the U.S. Constitution with Stephen Miller’s brutish mentality. CBK
LikeLike
The right has been brainwashing its minions to mistrust the federal government for decades. I can recall speaking with a woman who was a retired military officer at least ten years ago. She kept trying to convince me that small federal government is better and more efficient. I told her I worried less about the government’s size, but wanted government that works for the people. We agreed to disagree. Since that time the right has become more extreme and the brainwashing more intense. Now so many of them hate the federal government, even some people that collect checks by working for and with the federal government. It’s total cognitive dissonance from propaganda. I have no problem with efficiency measures, but they should be conducted by professionals, not a couple of big donating rich guys with an agenda.
LikeLike
Retired and Christine: Yes–the idea of waste, fraud, and abuse have been around a long time, notably in the U.S. Congress. (Do they know that?) These two guys (and Trump et al) are only changing the “who gets what” end run of that same waste, fraud, and abuse only now they are “weaponizing” it.
Another clue is that they want to go after Social Security and Medicare which are “for the people” (the older and vulnerable ones, especially) where SS happens to be famed as the most well-run agency in the government. (BTW, they seem to think it’s an undeserved “handout,” whereas most of us paid into it for decades.) (cringe, cringe, cringe)
Christine–“Schools ought not to be run as businesses and neither should the government.” Yes, that’s a bare minimum of knowledge for anyone in a position of power over others; and yet so many people do not understand the distinction and obviously these two morons don’t either–I see it as one the greatest failures of the very public school system that I completely support. (Too busy learning to write code.)
The other thing is that even if there are some scraps to be thrown under the table for professionals, no one can trust anything that comes from Trump et al because of his and their past record. “Okay,” we are supposed to say . . . let’s listen to the promises of the lying psychopath who has nothing but contempt for “the people.” And the use and abuse (and a royal screwing) of the rule of law in the article is nothing less than obscene.
ANYONE who reads that piece from the WSJ: be sure to put on your Orwellian Code Breaker glasses before you do. CBK
LikeLike
“There is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.“
What? Come on . . . so then, . . . why did you write this ghastly piece of totalitarian contempt for “the people” (of, for, by the people) for whom the U.S. Constitution was written? Ha ha ha ha!. It’s a joke, right? CBK
LikeLike
Schools ought not to be run as businesses and neither should the government.
LikeLike
We have a winner! Give that fine young lady a Kewpie Doll!
LikeLike
HOW TO STOP TRUMP — THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE
Article I, Section 1, of our Constitution states: “ALL [emphasis added] legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in “Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha” that the clear intent of our Constitution is that laws are to be written ONLY by Congress, not by some federal entity. In “West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency”, the Court ruled that federal agencies can’t create regulations that carry the weight of law. And in “Loper Bright v. Raimondo”, the Court overruled the “Chevron Doctrine” and declared that federal courts can no longer recognize how federal agencies interpret laws and issue rules and regulations that carry the weight of law.
Presidential Executive Orders that carry the weight of lawmaking therefore also violate Article 1, Section 1, of our Constitution because such Executive Orders carry the weight of law, and our Constitution authorizes only Congress to make laws.
In the Chadha ruling, the Court found that our Founding Fathers’ intent by reserving ALL legislative power for Congress was to check the power of other Branches of the government, including the Executive Branch.
Barring an amendment to our Constitution, Congress cannot delegate its constitutional role to a President or to any agent, except when there is a sudden, unanticipated emergency — and that is not the case with the U.S./Mexico border situation, or with the illegal immigrant situation, or with other situations for which president-elect Trump has said he will issue Executive Orders or declarations under the National Emergency Act (NEA).
SLOWNESS IS NOT A REASON
The Court stated in Chadha that the slow, deliberate pace of legislation in Congress does not constitute a reason for Congress to delegate away its legislative responsibility: The Court declared that “There is no support in the Constitution or decisions of this Court for the proposition that the cumbersomeness and delays often encountered in complying with explicit constitutional standards may be avoided, either by the Congress or by the President. With all the obvious flaws of delay, untidiness, and potential for abuse, we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted restraints spelled out in the Constitution.”
Nor can Congress delegate its authority to special agents, such as the proposed “Department of Government Efficiency” because as the Court also pointed out in Chadra: “[T]he fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution. Convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives — or the hallmarks — of democratic government.”
In fact, our Constitution does not contain any provision that explicitly permits the use of Executive Orders. Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution simply states: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Sections 2 and 3 describe the various powers and duties of the president, including “He shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
Clearly, the Executive Branch is constitutionally bound to carry out — to execute — the laws made by Congress, not to override those laws or make laws.
Any Executive Order or NEA declaration by the President that negates, overrides, or changes a law created by Congress violates Article 1, Section 1, of our Constitution and is a BREACH of the President’s Oath of Office to uphold and defend the laws of the United States.
NO BORDER OR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT EMERGENCY
The 2011 “National Emergency Powers” report by the Congressional Research Service lists the essential elements of an emergency condition:
An emergency is sudden, unforeseen, and of unknown duration.
An emergency is dangerous and threatening to life and well-being.
An emergency requires immediate action because it was unanticipated.
Therefore, any presidential NEA declaration would not only fail to meet the requirements of an emergency, such a declaration would actually create a national emergency, as well as violating our Constitution’s Nondelegation Doctrine.
Interestingly, various U.S. states and private corporations currently have cases before the Court which use the same Nondelegation Doctrine argument in an attempt to terminate rules and regulations issued by governmental agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. If the Court upholds the Nondelegation Doctrine against the EPA and other agencies, the Court will have to uphold the Nondelegation Doctrine against the use of Executive Orders and the National Emergency Act to address non-emergency issues that our Constitution states are the sole authority of Congress to address by the legislative process.
LikeLike
The agencies of the federal government were created to implement and monitor legislation that Congress passed. One of the jobs of the Executive Branch was to monitor and ensure that federal agencies were doing the job that Congress mandated through the legislation that created them.
Trump wants to erase the power Congress has according to the US Constitution, and put that power in his hands.
No need for Congress anymore.
Trump also wants to hold all the power of the DOJ, DOD, and courts.
No need for the DOJ anymore
No need for the DOD anymore
No need for the courts anymore.
Trump also wants to gut the 1st Amendment so he controls the news media.
No more protected news media.
LikeLike
There was no “mandate”.
For one thing, he got less than 50% of the popular vote. Calling something a “mandate” doesn’t make it so.
But since Trump said it, we know it’s a lie.
LikeLike
You could fire the entire federal workforce, including the entire military, and the federal deficit—not the debt, just the deficit—would be reduced by only 15%.
There are simply no meaningful savings to be found in attrition or “efficiency.”
The only real drivers of government spending are (1) defense spending, (2) social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and (3) interest payments on the national debt.
You can make the nation’s finances worse by spending a ton of money on programs that aren’t “paid for,” because that will jack up debt payments even further and make us even more dependent on rock-bottom inflation and interest rates.
But you cannot make our finances better by cutting discretionary spending. It’s just not possible.
The only way to do it is to (1) increase taxes, primarily on the middle class, or (2) cut spending on the military or social security/medicare/medicaid.
We know military spending won’t get cut. (And I’m not saying it should be. Just saying the reality is it won’t be.).
And nobody wants to raise taxes on the middle class.
So it is a guarantee that this quest to cut costs will eventually end up being a plan to cut social security and Medicare. Just watch.
LikeLike
Agreed, FLERP.
They will cut small programs like Corporation for Public Briadcasting, Planned Parenthood, and move on to social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.
LikeLike
Restoring Eisenhower-era tax rates would go a long ways to reducing the debt (and the interest being paid on it.) Economist/Professor Richard Wolff has pointed this out several times. We would be better off collecting more tax revenue from the wealthy instead of borrowing money from them and having to pay them interest.
LikeLike
Problem is (1) the effective tax rates back then were probably not that much higher than they are today, and (2) more important, there just is not enough money in the hands of the “rich” to keep SS and Medicare stable. The middle class remains where the most taxable income is.
LikeLike
I notice the new department-that-is-not-a-Department has expanded from “two men and a secretary” to include a “lean team” of “experts.” It would take hundreds of highly-qualified analysts to simply read and make recommendations on the thousands of pages of regulations that implement our laws. So this is not about that. They’ll have a list of targets provided by industrial buddies to cripple implementation of their most-hated laws. And a few “for show” provided by Republican politicos to feed to the public on a regular basis (like public broadcasting and Planned Parenthood).
LikeLike