The pair, who were named co-chairs of the panel last week, laid out their plans for the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
“The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings,” they wrote. “We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws.”
Musk and Ramaswamy pointed to several recent Supreme Court decisions that have taken aim at the power of the administrative state, arguing that a “plethora of current federal regulations” exceed agency authority and could be on the chopping block.
Slashing regulations should allow for “at least” proportional cuts to the government workforce, they argue.
“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” the pair wrote in the op-ed.
“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,” they added.
Musk and Ramaswamy preemptively addressed arguments about civil service protections that could potentially block Trump from firing federal workers.
“The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation,” they wrote. “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.”
“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,” they added.
The op-ed seemingly seeks to address widespread skepticism about the ability of Musk and Ramaswamy’s panel to enact change.
As an outside-of-government commission, it would be limited to an advisory capacity, meaning it could face numerous obstacles from within the executive branch, as well as Congress, experts previously told The Hill.
Read more in a full report at TheHill.com.
