Elon Must and Vivek Ramaswamy, named co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency by President-elect Trump, have jointly authored a piece for the Wall St Journal setting out how they intend to rein in the federal bureaucracy. This is how it begins:
Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people we elect run the government. That isn’t how America functions today. Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.
This is antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision. It imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to solve the problem. On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.
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 authorised 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.
Worth reading in full.
As I wrote after Trump’s victory, his commitment to taking back control from the bloated federal bureaucracy is the biggest reason to celebrate his electoral success. Let’s hope Musk and Ramaswamy do a good job. In four years’ time, when Labour is kicked out of office, it is essential that we implement our own version of this policy.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
> In four years’ time, when Labour is kicked out of office, it is essential that we implement our own version of this policy.
Pity we have to wait that long.
Who in and/or out of UK Gov’t could lead such a task. Another “pity”, I can’t think many if not anyone. Hopefully some will emerge.
“it is essential that we implement our own version of this policy”
It is essential first that we sell the merit of this idea to the general public. I get the impression the majority seem to think that the state getting involved in everything is appropriate – they just disagree among themselves on exactly which flavour of rule should be imposed, not on how many there are.
Bonfire of red tape is a policy classic which keeps being announced by each new government but somehow, never manifest themselves in the ways many people had hoped. Cameron said he wanted to do that. Cummings said he wanted to do that. Some of the Mayfly PMs probably made similar noises. This Musk Mission would seem to be another variant.
That this never really happens suggests that
a) load of spurious red tape isn’t really an issue
b) the task is vastly more complicated than was assumed on the outside
c) nobody really knows what it’s supposed to mean and hence, whatever is actually done about it (if anything) satisfied no one
d) The evil blob conquered them all!
I’m inclined to assume some mixture of a, b and c plus a desire of politicians to introduce new policies in order to implement their ideas instead of just digging though old ones.
Praise should be withheld until Musk has actually accomplished something worthwhile.
I think it’s mainly (e) which you put as “a desire of politicians to introduce new policies in order to implement their ideas instead of just digging though old ones”
Politicians reducing the power and influence of the state is like turkeys voting for Christmas. Javier Milei might be an exception. He has closed and merged ministries and as far as I know the sky has not fallen in.
Also I don’t think that many people really believe in this stuff – they want spending and influence to be cut in some areas and increased in others according to what they think the priorities should be.
Some people would include me. For instance, I’d generally prefer spending more money on a useful military (ie, soldiers and not just high-tech gimmicks — cheap guns for firing really expensive ammunition are a typical peace time degeneration) and less (ie, none at all) on foreign aid.
That aside, I’m having some trouble to put my thoughts into words here, so I’ll try another approximation: Everybody loves to complain about government waste or make jokes about how stupid “they” must be. But nothing is ever really done about it despite even a non-minimal government would have a strong interest in avoiding waste as this would leave more money for doing things.
This strongly suggest that avoiding things which are – in hindsight – wasteful is not as easy as many a knight in shining armour was already forced to learn and/or (it’s certainly a combination of both) many things which seem useless to laypeople are not nearly as useless as they appear to be and also, not necessarily something one can get that easily rid off. Because of this, I’m extremely skeptical about grand plans for waste cutting with a chainsaw this time.
Of course everyone has their own priorities for spending. I guess I was thinking about other stuff – for example, I think Ofcom’s powers should be pruned drastically, other people probably think Ofcom should do MORE censorship, not less.
I share your scepticism but hope to be pleasantly surprised.
According to Wikipedia, David Cameron once said
With a Conservative government, Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist… Its remit will be restricted to its narrow technical and enforcement roles. It will no longer play a role in making policy. And the policy-making functions it has today will be transferred back fully to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
That’s a principle sensible approach but it should be extended: In addition to technicalities, Ofcom is also responsible for protecting the public from harmful or offensive material.
This is a very insdious statement. The government, including quangos like Ofcom, should certainly not be responsible for (or have the power to) ‘protect’ adults who didn’t even ask for or consent to such ‘protection’ from receiving broadcasts they might consider offensive, according to the opinions of someone working for governofcom, as everybody is easily able to protect himself from this by simply not watching or listening to the transmission in question or ceasing to do so. We certainly don’t need government ‘protection’ against the hassle of pressing buttons on our remotes. Such protection is actually not protection at all because there was never a danger anybody needed to be protected from. This means the sole point of this statement is to inject a benign-sounding, if not even beneficially-sounding, justification for perfectly arbitrary censorship into the official definition of the purpose of Ofcom.
The additional harmful just serves make this sleight of hand appear even more innocuous. It’s asserted that there’s not only offensive material the government needs to protect us from but actually even (legal) harmful material, ie, the mere accidental exposure to it would harm our fragile essences in such a serious way that the government absolutely must step in and we are not even to be asked about this because of DANGER!!!1
In other words, we aren’t really adults capable of and responsible for making our own decisions, we’re but just our kind governments beloved but unfortunately much less than robust children.
This part of the Ofcom mission definition must be eradicated without a trace. Something should be done against the people who came up with it.
I completely agree with you. I will do my best to live long enough to see that day, but I’m not optimistic.
Yes, let’s hope DOGE doesn’t become another parasitic bureaucracy. Remember the Department of Administrative Affairs in Yes Minister?
I’m inclined to go with (d)!
Charlie Mullins??
He’d want us all jabbed. Get jabbed or lose your job Mullins.
Do take a look at the Reform Party website and the Contract with the people. It’s ready to roll.
Lots of fat, lazy targets on this happy hunting ground.
Agreed.
In 2021 I authored a piece on TCW on why it was essential to have a UK version of Bannon’s War Room too.
This was key to Trump’s victory. Simply, a daily 2 hour show hosting acknowledged experts to provide key information to local activists who then did the heavy lifting.
Add Bannon’s insights explaining the politics and it made a powerful mix, so threatening the blob that they imprisoned him.
Great idea.
Most people would support a massive deconstruction of state power.
Ending the money laundering – wars, tranny’s, ‘climate’ and other the other funnels of fraud.
The uncivil service needs to have term limits and be reduced by 75%. Twittered.
Sadly I think a lot of people will support the idea but will immediately scream for more government intervention the moment their short term benefits are threatened.
“his commitment to taking back control from the bloated federal bureaucracy is the biggest reason to celebrate his electoral success”
I strongly disagree. The biggest reason is that it shows that someone outside the political establishment can come to power. This sets us up well for the future. The second biggest reason is immigration – deporting all the illegals and stopping any more coming in (assuming he does this). That might save the USA, and it breaks a taboo which makes it possible that a similar approach be followed in other rich world countries. Immigration is destroying white civilisation – it’s an existential threat and is practically impossible to reverse.
Ramasmarmy is a nauseating creep.
Could you make a bit of an effort to add some substance to your comments rather than just hurling abuse. If we all merely hurled abuse, the comments section would become a complete bore, and who would want to read them?
Ramasmarmy is a Nauseating Creep, and so are you.
There, is that better, you Pretentious Git?
Your pathetic accusation of “hurling abuse” shows that you are not an Indigenous English speaker, so here’s is a real-life example to show you what “hurling abuse” is:
A Gang of Pakistani Muslim women followed a young English couple walking home from the pub at night, and suddenly started shrieking “K*ill the White B*tch!” while launching a vicious attack on her, beating her to the ground with punches and kicks, while screaming “K*ill the White B*tch!” over and over. She did not know any of them. Her English boyfriend did his best to stop them without actually hitting any of them, having been unfortunately trained from infancy to “Never Hit a Woman”, so all his efforts were in vain, and she was badly injured.
The Gang of Pakistani Muslim women, whose vicious attack was recorded on a CCTV street camera, were let off by the corrupt judge, who refused to call it “racist” or a “hate crime”, and agreed with their lawyer’s defence that they only shouted and attacked her “because they were not used to drinking alcohol”.
If it comes to a choice between bureaucrats or politicians to run the country then my vote would be for the bureaucrats.
Lets just take one example, roads, of the umpteen things that need regulation. Do you really want ignorant virtue-signalers to be regulating roads.
I’m a big fan of Musk, but one thing he said suggests that he could do more harm than good. He tells his employees to skip doing something they feel is unnecessary. Would you like to be a patient in a Musk run hospital?
A choice between competent and incompetent, in effect. It will be interesting to see what will happen to America’s relationship with global professional institutions, and various manufacturers as well. All right, they are undemocratic to some degree, but pretending to know what one is doing is not a bright idea.
“pretending to know what one is doing is not a bright idea.”
That’s why Boeings keep falling out of the sky.
They forced their Ethnic European staff to train Indian Subcontinentals Waving Fake Credentials, then sacked the staff and transferred the whole computer programming department to India.
Just like that Indian Billionaire did to British Steel.
Perhaps the question should be: “Would you like to be a passenger in a Musk space rocket?”
Not sure about that one, but am certain about not wanting to be driven by a self-driving car, there are too many special circumstances that the software will never cater for. Forget about AI, this is a “what happens if …” problem.
No, because “space” does not exist. The earth is enclosed in a dome, just like it says in the Bible.
I don’t know where he is planning to take his “Passengers to Mars”, but it ain’t Mars.
I don’t think US supreme court decisions apply to secondary legislation in the UK, hence, it’s a bit unclear what our own version of this policy is supposed to mean. What – if anything – Musk will accomplish also still remains to be determined. So far, he is just a guy about to set on a task he has absolute no detailed knowledge about and many things appear to be very easy to those with no real idea of them.
Well that’s true but he did correctly identify that the vast majority of Twitter employees were not doing anything essential to the basic operation of the platform, and fired them.
They sound pretty serious to me – it’s going to be interesting to see how the blob chooses to fight back. My money is on allowing a token change, but nothing drastic… they just need to drag it out
It will be very difficult for the UK to implement our own version because we are still semi-attached to the EU, whence many of the rules and regulations originate. Much of our Quangocracy was created to implement and monitor compliance in the UK … leaving the Government free to say “not me Guv a Big Boy did it” when something went wrong.
The first objective, therefore, should still be to cut the chain to Brussels and the second should be a Great Repeal Bill to rid us of Blair’s “Permanent Socialism” State.
Sadly in four yrs time this country will be so broken thanks to the efforts of the current globalist puppets, there will be no return. Sign the petition to remove the sludge do the Uk can be great again.
I wish DOGE the best and think they will gave some success. The problem we have is that our system “works ” differently to the US so implementing anything similar would be very hard.
The best hope for us is that they show that immigration can be controlled and that Net Zero is really bad on every measure.
But as is said elsewhere who can deliver those policies here against the Blob and with little support from a largely uninterested electorate.
I’m sure Starmer will want to make the UK a world leader in this respect and follow in lockstep with the USA!
What a breath of fresh air. I hope we get a similarly radical government here, after the next election. But few of our politicians are that visionary.
Wise words by Toby Young.
UK is lost if we don’t make similar Reforms to the US.
We also need to give our tattered Constitution a major makeover and a much more powerful position.
Our government and judiciary are trying to bury our Bill of Rights and Freedoms.
DOGE – doesn’t that name ring any bells? It makes me suspicious (not in a good way!).
You beat me to it, by six hours! I was scrolling down all the comments here just now, thinking of “The Doge” of Venice, and found yours.
“The word Doge derives from the Latin Dux, meaning “leader,” originally referring to any military leader, becoming in the Late Roman Empire the title for a leader of an expeditionary force formed by detachments from the frontier army, separate from, but subject to, the governor of a province, authorized to conduct operations beyond provincial boundaries.”
Not very promising, is it? And not least that no one else seems to have commented on it!