By Qamar Bashir
The stunning results of the USA elections surprised both Democrats and Republicans
alike. Trump’s unprecedented victory was accompanied by Republican wins in the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives. Before the 2024 elections, Democrats controlled
the Senate with 51 seats to Republicans' 49, while Republicans held a narrow majority in
the House with 220 seats to Democrats' 212. After the elections, Republicans gained
control of the Senate with 53 seats, and in the House, they retained their majority with
220 seats to Democrats' 213, with 2 races undecided. This outcome resulted in unified
Republican control of both chambers of Congress.
This has emboldened President-elect Donald J. Trump to undertake one of the boldest
policy and administrative decisions in U.S. history, which could be a potential game
changer. Mr. Trump has established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE),
to streamline federal operations by identifying wasteful spending, reducing regulatory
burdens, and restructuring or potentially abolishing certain agencies to enhance
government efficiency.
He is poised to substantially reduce the size of the U.S. civilian and military bureaucracy,
which, according to the strategic reform team led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy,
has grown excessively large. They argue that the bureaucracy has become a de facto
"fourth branch" of government, assuming overriding control over decision-making
processes and diminishing the power of the democratically elected political leadership.
The rationale behind this initiative is that the federal bureaucracy has grown
disproportionately large, with hefty perks and benefits, while many departments, despite
their significant size and employment levels, are either underperforming or have lost
sight of their original purpose. This has led to an unsustainable diversion of government
funds to sustain a bloated bureaucracy rather than focusing on essential public services.
The composition of the team leading this significant reform effort is noteworthy. Both
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy come from private-sector backgrounds and have no
prior experience in government bureaucracy. However, as highly successful corporate
entrepreneurs, they bring a proven track record of building organizations from scratch
and transforming them into success stories.
For instance, Vivek Ramaswamy, born in Cincinnati, Ohio, to Indian immigrant parents,
is a biotech entrepreneur and a prominent Republican figure. A Harvard graduate in
biology and a Yale Law School alumnus, he founded Roivant Sciences in 2014,
spearheading groundbreaking pharmaceutical ventures. Ramaswamy gained national
prominence through his criticism of "woke" corporate culture, as outlined in his 2021
book *Woke, Inc.* Recognized for his conservative principles and innovative thinking,
he was appointed by Trump to co-lead DOGE.
His vision includes reducing the federal workforce by up to 75%, abolishing redundant
agencies, and implementing eight-year term limits for unelected federal employees to
prevent the entrenchment of power. He supports rescinding Executive Order 11246 to
shift to a merit-based system and advocates utilizing Schedule F to streamline the
removal of "deep-state" actors. These reforms aim to streamline government operations,
reduce costs, and ensure a more responsive and meritocratic system.
Like Vivek, Elon Musk is a visionary entrepreneur, engineer, and inventor, known for
founding and leading several transformative companies. Born on June 28, 1971, in
Pretoria, South Africa, Musk moved to the U.S. to pursue higher education. He earned
degrees in physics and economics from the University of Pennsylvania. Musk co-founded
Zip2, an online business directory, and PayPal, a digital payments platform, before
venturing into ambitious projects like SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, and The Boring
Company. Through these ventures, Musk has revolutionized industries such as space
exploration, electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, and infrastructure, earning a
reputation as one of the most influential and innovative leaders of the 21st century.
Elon Musk has consistently called for a drastic reduction in federal bureaucracy,
advocating for the elimination of redundant agencies and unnecessary regulations. In a
November 2024 interview, he proposed cutting the number of federal agencies from 428
to 99, effectively reducing the government by 77%. The proposed slicing include several
agencies, including the Department of Education, FBI, ATF, IRS, CDC, and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Musk has criticized overlapping responsibilities and entrenched bureaucratic elements,
often referred to as the "deep state," which he believes hinder efficiency and innovation.
Comparing excessive regulation to having more referees than players in a game, he
emphasizes the need for a streamlined, responsive government that fosters progress.
According to the concept, reducing federal bureaucracy by 70% to 77% can promote self-
governance, efficiency, and potential tax reductions. By decentralizing power to state and
local governments, it would foster greater accountability and responsiveness while
empowering communities to address their unique needs.
Moreover, streamlining operations eliminates redundancies will enhance decision-making
agility, and will integrate modern technologies to reduce costs. Savings from reduced
expenditures can lower taxes, address national debt, and boost public investment in
critical areas like infrastructure and social welfare. This leaner structure would encourage
economic growth, reduce dependence on centralized systems, and builds trust in a fiscally
responsible government, benefiting both individuals and the private sector.
In an hypothetical scenario, if the civil and military bureaucracy is reduced by 77%, it
would generate savings of approximately $815.24 billion, and economic growth would
add another $260 billion, the total additional funds available would be $1,075.24 billion
annually.
If this amount is used to reduce taxes for the common people, it could result in a tax
reduction of approximately $3,239 per person annually, significantly easing the financial
burden on households across the United States, besides the higher growth rate would
amplify the benefits of deregulation and tax cuts, driving economic dynamism, fostering
business expansion, and enhancing government revenue through increased overall
economic activity.
Though the concept and ideal looks great on paper and while reducing bureaucracy
would promise cost savings, improved efficiency, and enhanced self-governance, its
practical implementation most likely would face significant challenges.
Political resistance from entrenched interests, legislative hurdles, and opposition from the
bureaucracy itself could impede progress. Downsizing risks substantial job losses,
economic disruption, and potential service gaps in critical public functions, including
national security.
Administrative complexities, such as restructuring workflows and maintaining morale
among remaining employees, add further difficulties. The anticipated economic growth
from deregulation and tax reductions may not materialize quickly, and regional
economies dependent on federal jobs could suffer. Legal and ethical concerns, including
labor lawsuits and equity issues, also pose significant risks.
To succeed, such reforms would require a phased, strategic approach, stakeholder
engagement, and meticulous planning to avoid unintended consequences and ensure
sustainable outcomes.
