Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy were recently appointed as co-leads of President-elect Donald Trump’s new advisory group, the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). Last Wednesday, the two outlined their plans for this initiative in an article published in The Wall Street Journal, presenting their vision for streamlining the federal government.
According to Musk and Ramaswamy, they will act as external volunteers tasked with making recommendations to downsize the federal government. They have expressed a focus on reducing what they describe as wasteful and “antidemocratic” federal agencies. Highlighting a key concern, they argue that much of the federal government’s authority lies in rules and regulations enacted by unelected bureaucrats, rather than laws passed by Congress.
Their plan involves assembling a small team of “small-government crusaders” who will collaborate with the Trump administration and the White House Office of Management and Budget. Central to their strategy is leveraging recent Supreme Court rulings, including West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency and Loper Bright v. Raimondo. These decisions, particularly the latter’s overturning of the Chevron doctrine, restrict federal agencies’ regulatory authority, which Musk and Ramaswamy argue has often exceeded Congressional mandates.
The advisory group plans to review existing regulations and make recommendations for executive action to pause their enforcement. DOGE will utilize what they describe as “advanced technology” to aid their legal experts embedded in government agencies. These experts will identify regulations that potentially exceed statutory authority. The list of identified regulations will be presented to President Trump, who could act unilaterally to pause their enforcement and initiate the process for rescinding them.
Musk and Ramaswamy assert that such regulatory rollbacks will free individuals and businesses from burdensome rules they claim were not legitimately enacted by Congress. They believe this could stimulate economic growth by removing what they consider unnecessary barriers. Additionally, they anticipate these efforts will enable a significant reduction in federal workforce numbers by determining the minimum staff required for agencies to fulfill their constitutionally mandated functions. While this would lead to a streamlined government, it could severely impact agencies responsible for implementing environmental protections, healthcare standards, and other critical services.
Another part of their proposed strategy involves introducing stricter workplace requirements for federal employees, including a mandate to return to the office five days a week. Musk and Ramaswamy suggest this could lead to voluntary resignations from employees unwilling to comply. They argue that taxpayers should not continue to fund remote work arrangements adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The article also highlights specific federal expenditures that Musk and Ramaswamy believe should be eliminated. These include $535 million allocated annually to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $1.5 billion in grants to international organizations, and nearly $300 million in funding for progressive groups such as Planned Parenthood. Such cuts reflect their broader aim to reduce federal spending and reallocate resources.
Ultimately, Musk and Ramaswamy envision dissolving DOGE entirely by July 4, 2026, believing that their recommendations will lead to a more efficient government that no longer requires the group’s oversight. They frame this deadline as symbolic of achieving independence from excessive bureaucracy.
Their proposals, however, face criticism for potentially undermining critical government functions and relying on contentious legal interpretations. Critics also warn that the deep cuts in regulations and staff could hinder agencies’ ability to serve the public effectively. Nonetheless, Musk and Ramaswamy remain steadfast in their mission, viewing their efforts as essential to reducing government overreach and fostering economic growth. Whether their vision will come to fruition depends on the Trump administration’s willingness to adopt their recommendations and the legal challenges likely to arise in implementing such sweeping changes.