Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is advisory only and ends July 4th - Congress sets discretionary funding - $2 trillion of saving is impossible and a president can't close departments
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency can’t be a body with real teeth without Congress’s support which Trump is highly unlikely to ever get. Also, it can’t be a body with real teeth because if it was Elon Musk couldn’t lead it.
Elon Musk won’t have any official position confirmed by Senate because if he did then he’d need to put SpaceX into a blind trust under Government ethics rules. That is because it depends on government contracts from NASA and the Ministry of Defence. There is no way Elon Musk would let anyone else call the shots at SpaceX as is needed for a blind trust. So this is not going to happen.
As for using Congress to shut down or drastically trim major organizations like the EPA, FDA, CDC etc, this is simply impossible. It took nearly 20 years to end the Board of Tea Examiners.
The Democrats with 47 seats can easily filibuster any legislation to try to remove major boards - and the House with only a majority of 2 to 4 seats has no chance of passing major legislation like that either because there would be sure to be far more than 4 house Republicans opposed to any such plan.
See:
What could Musk realistically do - nothing like $2 trillion - but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found $700 billion he can potentially trim without any major changes
First, Musk claims to be able to eliminate $2 trillion. But most of this isn’t in control of the executive. The main things Trump can do is to submit new budgets to Congress for discretionary funding.
There are three components, mandatory, discretionary and interest. Trump can’t change the mandatory funding unless Congress changes the laws that set that funding up. He can’t do anything about the interest. So that leaves the discretionary funding.
. File:2023-federal-budget-breakdown.png - Wikimedia Commons
Discretionary spending IS in the control of Congress which works out how much to spend on these areas every year in the yearly budgets. Trump can’t change these directly but he can suggest budgets to Congress for their yearly budget discussions.
Half of this consists of Defence, which he plans to increase:
File:Discretionary Spending 2019 Budget.jpg - Wikipedia
If he reduces defence spending he has $679 billion there that he could reduce to some extent. But many expect him to increase defence spending. That leaves the $626 billion in non defence spending (just rounding to the nearest billion of the %s of the 2023 budget)
Trump oversaw a big increase in defense spending in his first term. But it’s not certain it will increase in this term.
Whereas the right once almost uniformly supported higher military spending, it’s now split into three main camps, he argued.
The first is traditional defense hawks, such as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who favor a more assertive military and funding to support one. The second is budget hawks, like the House Freedom Caucus, who are most concerned with bloated government spending and would in some cases favor cuts.
And the third is the “America First” wing of the Republican Party, such as Trump’s final acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, who are skeptical that America’s military needs to maintain so many missions around the world, and may also support cuts.
. What a second Trump presidency could mean for the defense budget
The Mandatory spending can’t be changed at all, it’s authorized by various bills that Congress would have to change in order to change the mandatory spending.
Trump has said he won’t try to cut SSI or Medicaid etc. In any case he could only change these through Congress and not just by submitting new budgets to Congress.
File:Mandatory Spending.jpg - Wikipedia
See also United States federal budget - Wikipedia
Even with these restrictions there are ways he can save money according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. They found: “$700 Billion of Easy Deficit Reduction”
I’m not sure how easy those are but they are something he could look at.
MORE ON WHY ELON MUSK CAN’T HAVE OFFICIAL POSITIONS ANYWAY - BECAUSE HE’D HAVE TO PUT SPACEX IN A BLIND TRUST FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO MANAGE
With Elon Musk it's not a cabinet position. He would be head of a newly invented Department of Government efficiency which would only operate initially through to July 4th, set up by the president and more advisory than anything no actual teeth. So a president can set up something like that without any need for confirmation from the Senate.
Musk wouldn't want to have a government position because he'd have to divest his SpaceX / Tesla holdings or put them in trust because of conflicts of interest.
QUOTE STARTS
Instead, it seemed more plausible that Musk would be appointed to a blue-ribbon committee where he would still have enormous access, but he would not be subject to government ethics rules, which would require him to divest or put assets in a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest between his private business interests and government role.
. Trump’s allies are already jockeying for high-powered spots in his administration | CNN Politics
So in short, the Senate can boot out the Secretary of Defence by just not letting him take office and as long as there are 5 object he's had it. There are lots of moderate Republican Senators there. They will take a lot of convincing that he is up to the job.
Elon Musk's role is informal and advisory and he'll have no real power, just reporting to the president and Trump can do that without any problems without authority of Congress and Elon Musk wouldn't want a more official job anyway because by government ethics rules he'd have to hand control of SpaceX and Tesla over to someone else who he can't consult with for the duration of the job (a blind trust). He obviously won't want that so that's impossible.
He would have to do that because in a more official post, he'd be able to make decisions that would impact on SpaceX and Tesla and which he could exploit if he continued to have direct control of SpaceX and Tesla.
QUOTE STARTS
In some cases, the same experience that qualifies an individual for a role may create potential conflicts of interest. Legislators with experience in an industry are more likely to be given committee assignments involving the regulation of that industry. However, that experience may be tied to ongoing personal financial interests that would require recusal from participating in those matters. Some legislators may use blind trusts in an attempt to ethically balance private interests with public duties.
In a blind trust, an individual places assets that could otherwise create conflicts of interest into an asset vehicle ("trust"). Control over the trust and its assets are given to an independent trustee, who may buy and sell assets without the knowledge or consent of the beneficiary ("blind"). In theory, a public official with a blind trust would be immunized from potential conflicts stemming from the assets held in trust because the legislator-beneficiary would have no knowledge of the impact of official actions on the personal financial interests.
So this means someone else would have to run Tesla and SpaceX and make all the decisions about them and Elon Musk would only know about what is going on from the news. He couldn't be involved in the design of the rockets, or in deciding which programs to go ahead with or stop or which government contracts to bid for or anything.
This is obviously impossible for Elon Musk so this type of post is out of his reach.
Trump will also have the same problem of the first term of a revolving door presidency - Elon Musk won’t be Trump’s poodle for instance
Few people will be able to stand being absolutely loyal to Trump for 4 years. The most obvious split is with Musk. There is no way Musk will submit to be Trump's poodle. As the world's wealthiest man and someone larger than life with strong and often bizarre and eccentric views on numerous things it is not remotely credible that he will remain aligned with Trump for long on much.
That is a prediction of John Ryley, former head of Sky News. Asked to comment on the BBC he said
QUOTE STARTS
I think what you should remember is that Musk is a big character. And when you have two big characters together they don't always agree. So I think this will end in tears.
And last month when Trump was interviewed by Joe Rogan the podcast host he said the biggest mistake he made of his presidency is who he appointed at the start. He said there were bad people and there were disloyal people.
He will want all the people he appoints for the next 4 weeks, 74 days, to be ultra loyal. Musk probably won't be ultraloyal He is his own boss, he is a a very wealthy guy, richest guy on the planet. He is not going to take what Trump says always to heart. And he will be a troublemaker. And I thought the comparison you made earlier with Isambel Kingdom Brunel, great Victorian innovater. He was a very difficult guy as well. And I think Musk is probably quite a difficult guy.
2:26 into US Election 2024 - US Election 2024
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Elon Musk won’t be Trump’s poodle. Trump with Patton, a Goldendoodle cross between poodle and golden retriever.
only president never to have a pet.
Photo of Patton from: Trump's First Dog $PATTON (@patton_on_sol) on X
at one point there seemed to be some potential for him to choose Patton as a pet but he never did.
Donald Trump is the only president never to have a pet. The Trump family are not known to have any pets.
. United States presidential pets - Wikipedia
However at one point there was hope he might adopt Patton a Goldendoodle - Wikipedia
So I thought it was a good graphic to use to illustrate the obvious - that Elon Musk won’t be Trump’s poodle.
When Musk finds he can't fire people and hire their favourites e.g. for the head of the NIH or CDC etc. they will likely rebel maybe resign, maybe be fired.
I don't think Musk has a clue about this, one of the disadvantages of being so wealthy. It is so easy to surround himself with an echo chamber of people who tell him how great he is. It takes a lot of humility to avoid that trap.
Incidentaly for anyone who worries, Elon Musk can’t run for US president as he wasn’t born in the USA.
The good news is the US democracy is very strong and the various departments are self-operating and it can continue through all sorts of issues.
It is hard to know with Trump if he really doesn’t know or he expects them to fail. He has only given Elon Musk through to July 4th. Though he says he is confident they will succeed.
But for Elon Musk then for sure he has no idea of the problems involved. He is very naive and doesn’t listen to people who warn him of potential blunders.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC TRUMP VANCE TRANSITION
November 12, 2024-
STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
I am pleased to announce that the Great Elon Musk, working in conjunction with American Patriot Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead the Department of Government Efficiency ("DOGE"). Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies - Essential to the "Save America" Movement. "This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in Government waste, which is a lot of people!" stated Mr. Musk.
It will become, potentially, "The Manhattan Project" of our time. Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of "DOGE" for a very long time. To drive this kind of drastic change, the Department of Government Efficiency will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before.
I look forward to Elon and Vivek making changes to the Federal Bureaucracy with an eye on efficiency and, at the same time, making life better for all Americans. Importantly, we will drive out the massive waste and fraud which exists throughout our annual $6.5 Trillion Dollars of Government Spending. They will work together to liberate our Economy, and make the U.S. Government accountable to "WE THE PEOPLE." Their work will conclude no later than July 4, 2026-A smaller Government, with more efficiency and less bureaucracy, will be the perfect gift to America on the 250th Anniversary of The Declaration of Independence. I am confident they will succeed!
What about just not spending the money - impoundment - this would Congress to remove the 1974 impoundment control bill - not very credible - or try to defy Congress but Supreme Court expected to rule against him
Short summary:
impoundment was made illegal in 1974, no way Congress would change that because it would surrender their own right to decide budgets, moderate Republicans couldn’t vote for that.
Trump could illegally impound funds and hope the Supreme Court would rule that the law is unconstitutional
but if anything they moved in the opposite direction with the Chevron case ruling in favour of LESS independence of the president from Congress
[the Supreme Court is NOT MAGA and has often ruled against Trump]
Vought thinks Trump could defund agencies by holding back money he is legally required to spend by Congress.
That is called illegal impoundment. He did it with Vought in his first term when he held back money owing to Ukraine temporarily. What he did was illegal and he was forced to send the money to Ukraine.
Allegedly he combined that with a threat to Zelensky which is one of the things lead to his first impeachment.
So, impoundment is when the president refuses to use the money that has been allocated to spend on various things and just holds it back unspent.
The impoundment bill limits what a president can do in that way. He has to ask Congress for permission to hold back funding and Congress has 45 days to reply and if it ignores the request then he can't impound the funds.
This bill was passed in 1974 after then president Nixon refused to spend lots of funding that was allocated by Congress.
. Impoundment of appropriated funds - Wikipedia
So then illegal impoundment is when the president refuses to spend the money even though Congress has also refused his request to impound it or he never asked Congress for permission.
With the Ukraine funding he just tried to block the funds.
This time around he wants to go further and take back the power of unlimited impeachment as it was under Nixon before the impoundement bill. There are two ways to do it.
He could ask Congress to reverse the 1974 bill, remove it. But he only has a majority that is somewhere between 3 and 5 in the House with the last 3 seats still to be counted, very close - and 3 in the Senate. It's pretty likely that at least some moderate Republicans will not want to give the president unlimited power to hold back funds that they have allocated for various things.
In both House and Senate it would be likely to fail because legislators would see it as weakening Congress too much - and they have the longer term view. It would mean not just Trump but ANY president could refuse to spend money that Congress allocates for projects that the legislators may be very keen on. They are going to be in Congress possibly tor the rest of their professional lives.
He could just defy Congress and ignore the bill - and then it would go through the courts up to the Supreme Court.
He might think that the justices would vote with him because he appointed several of them and might think they would want to give the president more power simply because he appointed them and he wants more power. But it doesn't work like that.
With the Chevron decision the Supreme Court shifted the other way - saying that they did not think that the Executive should have the power to interpret things as they please when a bill is ambiguous.
See:
They said that was a role for Congress or the Judiciary - the president can suggest interpretations but not decide them. They said past decisions won't be affected for the most part - but in the future if the president has some novel interpretation of the law that this is up to the justices not the president to decide.
QUOTE STARTS
There will be obstacles. It does not take a leap of faith to guess that even many Republican lawmakers may not want to cede the power of the purse back to the White House.
Trump might think he’ll fare well challenging impoundment at the Supreme Court, which now leans to the right and is skeptical of the federal bureaucracy. The court recently curtailed the power of agencies to interpret statutes passed by Congress. That could also be read as a warning against executive overreach.
Incidentally the same article says that Ramaswamy wants to close down the FBI of all things.
CNN says that "That would be an interesting political argument to watch unfold after Republicans complained that Democrats wanted to defund the police."
QUOTE STATS
Ramaswamy, citing his new view of a law passed in 1977 and signed by then-President Jimmy Carter that references a president’s authority to determine changes to agencies, would also obliterate the FBI, the Department of Education and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, among others. It’s a heterodox view of the scope of presidential power, to say the least.
It’s not at all clear that Trump shares Ramaswamy’s view of nixing all of these agencies. Even if he did, there would be lawsuits if Trump took Ramaswamy’s advice to simply end the FBI. That would be an interesting political argument to watch unfold after Republicans complained that Democrats wanted to defund the police.
This is the big-think mindset Ramaswamy could bring to DOGE. Trump clearly wants big ideas as he tries to reimagine the US government.
If Trump really does try to do these things - even though he surely fails - this is hardly going to get the Republican party many votes.
It sounds to me like a sure fire way to lose the House and Senate in the mid terms?
And the legislators in the House especially - any in marginal seats - they only have two years before they could be thrown out due to this sort of thing.
Also, there are many Senators also that are willing to stand up to Trump.
Then, withTrump as a president who has already been impeached twice and the second time convicted by 7 of his own senators it's not impossible he is impeached again.
Even his own party would surely impeach him if he did something very illegal, or something that though not illegal they see as extreme misconduct.
Another way it could happen is if the Democrats gain control of the House and Senate in 2026 they could start impeachment proceedings and bring them to the Senate. As they did in 2020.
If he does something that is as out there as trying to close down the FBI by impounding the funds for it or some other popular and widely supported department - then I can imagine even his own party wanting to impeach him for misconduct.
Also such presidential overreach would surely stopped in the courts.
It looks as if the US Constitution is going to be tested in many novel ways but it is a very well designed robust Constitution.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.rough Ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.