19 Feb President D’Elonald Trumusk
A war on “unelected bureaucrats” serving in federal departments is being fought on your behalf by . . . unelected bureaucrats. The latter group of warriors are being led by Elon Musk, the richest person in the world. He is a mercenary hired by President Donald J. Trump, the most powerful person in the world. It is an odd situation, to say the least.
The first question is whether the Trump-enabled, Musk-engineered Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) actually is America-enhancing. Or, as “Trumusk’s” critics claim, are we watching an America-endangering two-headed monster?
And why, pray tell, does Mr. Musk’s head even need to be attached to President Trump’s body to achieve efficiency? Let’s discuss all of this.
In Favor of a Much Smaller Federal Role
To be clear, I continue to applaud the goal of reducing the size, cost, and scope of federal government. The United States simply must get our spiraling national debt ($36 trillion and counting) under control, as I have written previously. Overregulation indeed is inefficient and economically harmful, as I have said, and it violates the principles of freedom and free enterprise.
Therefore, I am not at all opposed to the economic objectives of DOGE, as I wrote before its work began. Every American should be in favor of efficiency, even by our federal government.
DOGE via Trumusk
The broader purpose of DOGE, however, is to fulfill Mr. Trump’s campaign promises to “drain the swamp” in D.C., to destroy the “deep state,” to deliver “retribution” against “the enemy within,” to put “America First,” to eliminate government “waste,” and to save “trillions” of dollars of taxpayer money in the process. Mr. Trump is not one to hide his motives, and he did get elected on this strange, vengeful, and unambiguous platform. The majority of voting Americans obviously wanted to see bureaucratic cuts.
It is less clear what drove Mr. Musk to donate hundreds of millions to the Trump campaign, other than to become the president’s “First Buddy” and lead DOGE. The psychologists among you – trained or amateur – are free to diagnose him in the comments section below. I am not going to speculate, but I did have a discussion with a friend about whether Trump is being bought by Musk to help Musk’s businesses, or whether Musk is being exploited by Mr. Trump to do Trump’s dirty work. Most likely, the manipulation is mutual.
Whatever their motives, Elon Musk is an unelected bureaucrat if there ever was one, and he is virtually co-President. It is like he and Trump have a job-sharing arrangement. Hence, my “Trumusk” nickname for them.
My concerns with Trumusk relate to Mr. Musk’s role and to DOGE’s tactics and style, more than the substance of what Messrs. Trump and Musk are attempting. Again, deregulation, budget reduction, and limited government are principled and good. But Trump and Musk give these laudable and politically popular efforts a bad name, not least through their ostentatious targeting of small enemies. The mean and selfish vindictiveness is unamerican and dangerous.
More serious is the apparent disregard of the law, which then requires courts to rein in Trumusk’s excesses. And, worst of all are the severe conflicts of interest inherent in Musk’s companies selling billions of dollars in products to the federal government and competing with the government for talent, all while he has access to confidential government data and is making buying and employment decisions for that same government. Elon Musk profiting from government dealings he influences is unethical and brazenly corrupt.
Better Means to Ends
Rather than Mr. Musk’s troubling unofficial/official role, could it not be President Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, running the show? Why could they not accomplish the goals of fixing the size, cost, scope, and efficiency problem that is the federal government? Trump himself is the boss of each department head, who could be instructed to implement cost-reducing measures. If necessary, he and Vance also could direct the Office of Management and Budget, or the Office of Personnel Management – along with the department leaders – to make vast reforms.
Last but not least, Congress must be involved if the Executive Branch is to be significantly reduced. First, Congress authorized these administrative departments, and only Congress can eliminate them. Second, Congress controls the nation’s purse strings, and this efficiency effort relates closely to spending. Third, Congress, especially the U.S. House of Representatives, is the branch mostly directly democratic due to the frequency of its elections (i.e., every two years). If Congress makes changes the citizens do not want, or if efficiency is pursued the wrong way, we can vote our representatives out almost immediately.
Donald Trump’s party controls both houses of the Legislative Branch, and the entire administrative cabinet serves at his pleasure. There is no reason he cannot use his own head – rather than that of Elon Musk – to make the changes promised during the race for the White House. President Trump, not Mr. Musk, was elected. He, not Musk, must lead.
Written by Quentin R. Wittrock, founder of Principle Based Politics.
Look for his periodic posts, as this blog explores and promotes the idea of principle in politics, both as to individual elected leaders and our federal government as an institution.
Principle Based Politics does not endorse or support any particular political candidate or party.
Veronica Schmidt Harvey
Posted at 12:54h, 19 FebruaryI agree that efficiency and cost reductions are critical goals (“the what”). However the “how” is another story. And from what I’ve seen the process is a poorly planned,, slash and burn endeavor that is creating chaos and doing long term damage to important agencies. There is plenty of research to show that mass layoffs in organizations ultimately have a substantial negative impact on the organization. (Not to mention the devastation of many employees lives).
https://www.innovativehumancapital.com/article/the-devastating-toll-of-layoffs-measuring-human-and-organizational-costs
Quentin
Posted at 13:08h, 19 FebruaryI knew your psychology training and professional experience would give great insight on this! Thank you.
Rich Shirk
Posted at 13:51h, 19 FebruaryNo one should argue against the smallest government possible that can effectively and efficiently meet the goals of the American people. You are correct. We also have to manage our federal debt and deficit. You are correct.
However, this thoughtless slash and burn strategy will come back to haunt the country. In 1960, the federal workforce made up 2.9% of the total workforce. In 2019, the federal workforce made up 1.35% of the total workforce.
The problem is not necessarily the size of that workforce, but how it is allocated. Allowing someone like Musk unfettered access to every cache of information that the government holds, with virtually zero accountability is ludicrous. Allowing him to make hiring and firing decisions in a willy nilly manner, across the entire government will prove disastrous in times when expertise and experience matter. We will all pay a price for these actions.
Quentin
Posted at 13:59h, 19 FebruaryWhen Musk and his fans boast that the strategy is to “go fast and break things,” I always wonder what their reaction will be when vital things get broken.
Annette Beseman
Posted at 13:58h, 19 FebruaryI could not agree more. You have put into eloquent words what I have been thinking. I’m going to save this article and share it when I have opportunity to have discussions about this troubling situation.
Quentin
Posted at 14:02h, 19 FebruaryThank you! Remind your friends to subscribe to my blog on the front or back page of the website.
Darren Knight
Posted at 14:22h, 19 FebruaryOrange Man’s adminstration is not “vengeful”–he has been fighting the powers that be since 2016–and must continue to do so. When one is fighting back–it is not vengeance. DOGE is proving again that there is a dark, deep state, which coupled with the dems and vast majority of the leftist media, are resisting literally everything Trump is doing. The executive branch has broad powers and it is the resistance that is improperly shopping for leftist judges to stop executive actions. So, it is not Trump or Musk acting illegally or improperly–it is the opposition to same. We have $36 TRILLION in debt. Congress has proven it cannot control spending–they simply cannot and will not act with wisdom and maturity. The only method that will work to make government more accountable–is to turn it upside down and shake it. Government does not currently serve the people like it should–the people serve the government. It is all backwards at this point in time. The fix is painful but overdue and necessary. What is truly puzzling is how anybody–without regard to politics–would not want to make government more efficient–which involves cuts. The dems are government freaks. The dems constituency is government–not us. Ironically, they don’t understand that reform is in everyone’s best interest–including their best interest.
Quentin
Posted at 14:32h, 19 FebruaryTrump not vengeful? I think you should have started your argument with a different point, counselor. As you know from my post itself (and many other of my writings), I agree with you about the national debt problem and the need for dramatic reform.
BRAD SCHROEDER
Posted at 15:41h, 19 FebruaryWell done, Quentin. Thoughtful and fair.
Quentin
Posted at 15:43h, 19 FebruaryThat means a lot to me, Brad.
Russell Weaver
Posted at 15:53h, 19 FebruaryWhat is the ONLY reason for Musk to want access to the IRS’s personal information of millions of citizens? This reminds me of Richard Nixon’s attempt to use the IRS as a political tool to punish his perceived enemies.
Quentin
Posted at 15:57h, 19 FebruaryThis mystifies me, too. Anyone have other thoughts on what use DOGE can make of IRS data, etc.?
Laurie Bergren
Posted at 16:04h, 19 FebruaryGood post, Quentin. I’m very glad to see you addressing this. In my view, what’s happening now is no less than a coup orchestrated by Trump and Musk, and fully enabled by House Republicans. We have three branches of government for a reason. I agree we need to get our national debt under control, and I wish you had mentioned the fact that TRUMP’S tax breaks for corporations and the ultra-wealthy in his previous term, along with similar tax breaks for the same group under every REPUBLICAN administration since Reagan have been the chief contributor to that debt. Rick Shirk’s comment is right on the money. Also, anyone who thinks privatising government programs will save money and be more efficient is living in a dream world.
Quentin
Posted at 16:10h, 19 FebruaryRegarding the 2017 tax law that expires this year, I hope to address that in a separate post as soon as Congress proposes a budget. It should do so promptly, as the debt ceiling has been reached and the current spending extension expires runs out next month!
Paul Silseth
Posted at 16:39h, 19 FebruaryVery good. As a farmer I need to till the soil, As a carpenter I need to cut some wood, and as a baker I need to Knead the dough, all to get a better product. Yes it can be scary. You seem to fall along the line of of the democrat party, “The sky is falling” mentality. Remember the first Trump? How many hours was it after the inauguration that the chant was ” Let the impeachment begin!!!” You like they, don’t give him a chance, just to be politically clear, I get concerned that things might go to fast, but I do not run to the enemy and tell them we are bad. I don’t think you necessarily wanted President Kamala, but you may have preferred her to another term of President Trump. Would you be willing to write a piece on where we would be if Kamala was President?
I wish Darren had a site. I would definitely subscribe.
Quentin
Posted at 16:48h, 19 FebruaryI don’t consider any “side” of America to be “the enemy,” Paul. By publishing my principled analysis, I am not meaning to help or hurt either political party, as I do not see the world (even the political world) in us versus them terms. So, if something I write exposes a weakness or fault in a politician’s actions, he and his own party should be the ones to thank me for the advice on how they can improve. All political actors could improve their ability to take constructive criticism, which actually is better for them than Kool Aid.
Annette
Posted at 16:46h, 19 FebruaryA further thought…as others have said, process matters. This “throwing the baby out with bathwater” approach would never be tolerated in any company or institution. Leaders would be declared incompentent. Musk has no accountability, and if he does have it, it needs to be clearly explained and proven to the American people. He seems to be slashing anything he “doesn’t like” rather than taking a lawful, educated approach, which would of course require more effort. Everything he cuts is being called “waste and fraud.” Two very different things in my book. Waste comes about for many reasons including poor management, something growing too big to have proper accountability and controls, etc. Fraud is something entirely different. This is unlawful deliberate manipulation. If you are going to label something a “fraud” you need to have facts to back it up and they need to be shared with the American people. I have yet to find any “official” (not news reports) communication about the specific cuts, whether they are made based on waste or fraud, and the impact on the functioning of the government. This process is a fraud in my opinion.
Quentin
Posted at 16:51h, 19 FebruaryPreach it, Annette!
Jonah Heuer
Posted at 17:59h, 19 February“Musk is practically co-president.”
No. He is in charge of one thing: cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. Is he making foreign policy decisions? Is he making military decisions? Is he writing executive orders? Is he setting agrictural policy or public health policy? No. He’s got one job, and he’s doing it well, and quickly.
Quentin
Posted at 18:08h, 19 FebruaryThat’s a fair point, Jonah. To illustrate my argument that Musk has too much power, I may have taken excess artistic liberty on the “co-President” line.
DKnight
Posted at 20:00h, 19 FebruaryWhat many of you seem to be missing–is how messed up we are at this time in history. Biden and his handlers were incompetent and corrupt. But–beyond Biden–we have been sliding with ever getting bigger government for decades. Plus one party, the dems–have a strangle hold on the machinery of government–it is unhealthy. A course correction is crucial right now. We must learn to trust people again–and not institutions. Back to Mr. Q’s thought on vengeance. Is rooting out corruption vengeance?–including corruption at the justiice department and the FBI? We must consider how dangerous it is for all powerful government agencies to improperly direct their power at individuals for political reasons. This corruption is real–consider Obama sending the FBI after Trump, as Obama was leaving office. Remember Russia, Russia–total BS. Covid and Fauci, etc.–this is bad, dangerous government–all in recent times. Trump & company must take on this entrenched insitutional power–and bring freedom back. Is it vengeance to upset the apple cart with regard to government agencies and bureacracies that do not answer to any elected officials–and spend our money in bad directions?–no it is not. This is very difficult work–changing the government control paradigm. Trump is far from perfect–but he understands the big picture. Good news–at least the process is starting–and everybody is discussing it. I hope DOGE is successful in all respects. $36 Trillion–and corruption–a bad combo.
Quentin
Posted at 20:12h, 19 FebruaryRegarding vengeance, Trump (and his enablers) seem to consider anyone who has opposed Trump in any way as corrupt — or at least disloyal — and in need of being rooted out. Vengeance manifests itself in firing people because of their past work on a case against him or a project he doesn’t like, or any other personal disdain he has. As we know as lawyers, most of those folks were just doing what the lead lawyer or supervisor asked them to do. That doesn’t make them corrupt.
Doug Phish
Posted at 20:05h, 19 FebruaryGreat article Quentin.
Too much debt.
Regardless of where our politicians finally massage the dials, our choices will remain between two at this point: small dribbling amounts or large staggering sums.
Darrin
Posted at 21:05h, 19 FebruaryI’m just concerned that MSNBC might come after you for some form of copyright violation.
I kept reading and reading, hoping there would be some concrete examples and analysis to support the assertions in the early part of the post, but alas, it was all personal. And it almost feels vengeful (at least under the broad definition it’s given in this post).
When the premise of the critique is that Musk is unelected, not much value can follow. Every Secretary is unelected (at least as far as the public is concerned). Every President has a unique way of operating, and all of them have unelected advisors such as a Chief of Staff who can at times be very much in the background and at times basically playing the President’s role.
In any case, some clear examples of the conflicts referenced but not provided would be great, as would be specific cases of problematic DOGE actions for validating your claims. Otherwise, even to those who see ourselves as agnostics, this pretty much reads like another piece of hate mail for Trump.
Quentin
Posted at 21:19h, 19 FebruaryAs for Musk’s conflicts, aren’t some of his companies federal contractors? With him deciding what federal contracts to cancel (or not cancel), that seems like a conflict or impermissible self-dealing. What am I missing?
As to your insinuation that this is a hit piece on President Trump (in the same vein as many MSNBC stories, you imply), I wonder sometimes if there is any constructive criticism I could offer our President that would not be so categorized. It is almost akin to being accused of belonging to a “cult” simply because I agree with something our president does.
Nevertheless, I will endeavor to provide more specific facts to support my opinions in the future. Thank you for that advice.
Gary Russell
Posted at 21:27h, 19 FebruaryGreat discussion as always. Again I see the two viewpoints of (a) This new approach is reckless and the Republicans are just on the sidelines letting it happen, vs. (b) This is long overdue. When I listen to news programs, they often use the words “constitutional crisis”. It’s interesting to see the dichotomy playing out: One side sees the benefits of a slow-moving “institutional” Gov’t with so-called checks & balances. The other says essentially “This has what has gotten us into this mess and we need to rupture it – fast”. So the usual ways of “going through Congress” won’t work; too slow and ineffective. One thing about Darren’s posts that is refreshing: He is willing to call out things he doesn’t agree with along with the ones he supports. This type of “critical thought” is missing in so many of our discussions. For sure we are living through a “constitutional experiment”.
Quentin
Posted at 21:35h, 19 FebruaryI love these discussions. We all are processing something remarkable happening in real time.
Paul Silseth
Posted at 21:31h, 19 FebruaryAnd the Biden administration was at the top, if not the very top of the most honest ethical leadership our country has had. Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, the Squad, and many others Tim Walz too. If only they were in charge again. Life was grand then. Wasn’t it?
Quentin
Posted at 21:32h, 19 FebruaryWhataboutism is a last-resort argument. No number of wrongs make a right.
Rich Shirk
Posted at 13:59h, 20 FebruaryFascinating discussion by an uncommonly well informed audience. I congratulate you, Quentin, for attracting such a diverse, articulate and passionate audience.
Now, to the point. What is happening today, and has happened over the past several weeks has nothing to do with uncovering waste and fraud. Those aims require time for actual investigation, research and analysis.
What we are seeing today is implementation of a completely arbitrary policy that claims that “probationary” employees are bums and lazy non-performers. In reality, all federal civil service employees are “probationary” for a year, or more, after hiring depending on their job classification and area of expertise.
Additionally, if someone changes positions within the civil service, no matter their length of tenure or status of previous performance evaluations, they are considered to be “probationary” in their new role for a period of time.
The current methodology of eliminating “probationary” employees has nothing to do with uncovering waste and fraud. It is simply an arbitrary criteria that slashes the federal payroll without regard to actual need for the position, tenure of the employee, or expertise.
It is a fools errand to argue against efficient and effective government and I would not do that. However, Musk has developed a simple criteria for determining who stays and who goes that makes his job easier, but actually does nothing to advance the cause of eliminating waste and fraud. It is simply a meat cleaver approach to cost cutting.
Quentin
Posted at 14:11h, 20 FebruaryIt’s so great to have your addition to the discussion, Rich.
Gary Russell
Posted at 16:54h, 20 FebruaryHere is a question aimed at “critical thought”. Do you agree with Trump’s current criticism of Ukraine who we have been supporting? I sort of see it in 4 buckets: 1) Agree on MAGA and agree that a change of position was needed. 2) Agree on most MAGA but don’t agree with criticizing Ukraine. 3) Disagree on MAGA but agree that we need less foreign outlays and less support for Ukraine. 4) Disagree on both MAGA and criticism of Ukraine. All views are welcome but esp. interested in anyone’s buckets #2 and #3.
Stanley Hamilton
Posted at 22:54h, 20 FebruaryHi Quentin:
I have taken the bait and just need to respond to your most recent blog. I think most people would agree that Two Heads are Better than One, but for those that do not agree with that sentiment, perhaps they would at least agree that Two Heads are Better than NONE!
For the past 4 years our nation has been led by a man that was cognitively impaired. In addition, he did not have the physical stamina to meet the demands of the job. Joe Biden was not running our country. Perhaps only Dr. Jill knows who was at the helm. Was it Dr. Jill herself, or Hunter, or KJP, or Schumer, or Pelosi, or Obama, or Blinken, or George Soros? We really don’t know, except we do know it was not Joe.
I came from a corporate and business world where when I hired a person, I wanted to find somebody who was smarter than me (that was never a difficult task) and that wanted my job. By doing so, it made me look good and it was good for my employer. Donald Trump should surround himself with the best and the brightest. One of those is Elon Musk. We should celebrate his efforts to surround himself with new minds and ideas. Looking to the business / private for sector for leadership is such a refreshing approach. Academia has had its turn and failed our country. I hope he and Elon succeed.
Quentin
Posted at 23:41h, 20 FebruaryI was hoping you would jump in, Stan. Indeed, Mr. Trump found someone smarter than himself to assist, and, as I said, I applaud the economic aspects of their project. I continue to rue the undignified and vengeful way they go about their business, as they jeopardize my true goal of a smaller federal government.
R Fredin
Posted at 21:13h, 21 FebruaryMany interesting comments posted, and may have missed one but have not read any so far that talk about the fraud and corruption in politics. Far too many of them (both sides) becoming millionaires within the first couple years of being elected is more than just “suspicious.” My thought is, Those that are yelling the loudest in Congress, are the ones very fearful of the paper trail they may have left. Not sure how any American that pays taxes would not support this. President Trump is certainly not perfect but if that’s what you’re looking for, walk into any Christian church, you will find him hanging in the front nailed to a cross. None of us are perfect, but the goal of trying to be better has certainly been achieved in the first month of his term. Not perfect but by FAR the better option that we had as voters.