The First 100 Days
Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Drive to Streamline Government
As we enter President Trump's second term, we have a rare chance to make real, lasting changes to the federal government. Since Trump isn't running for reelection, he has the freedom to take bold action without worrying about political fallout. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), potentially led by Elon Musk, could be a game-changing initiative. Just as he transformed Twitter (now X), Elon can cut through the bloated inefficiencies of federal agencies. Imagine Elon and a team of sharp minds—Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron Paul, David Sacks, and others—teaming up to eliminate waste and make the government work better for its citizens. This is our moment to do more than trim excess—we have the opportunity to overhaul the way the executive branch operates. We need to grab this chance to strip away what doesn’t work and create a government that genuinely serves the people.
The Problem of Federal Bloat: A Historic and Present Crisis
Under the Biden administration, the federal workforce has ballooned, possibly reaching three million non-military employees. Many of these workers are more focused on perpetuating bureaucratic red tape than delivering real results, while others openly work against the president's agenda, as they did during Trump's first term. The irony is that these very employees are the ones who write the rules that make it nearly impossible to fire them, creating a significant conflict of interest. Biden and the Democrats have bolstered public sector unions, making many federal jobs nearly untouchable. Even though the courts have weakened Chevron deference, it's clear that we need more than just legal tweaks to address this—it's time for a complete overhaul, starting with Schedule F.
Streamlining Government with Schedule F: The Key to Efficient Governance
To truly tackle bureaucratic inertia, reinstating Schedule F is not just desirable—it is essential for reclaiming efficiency and accountability in the federal workforce. Schedule F, which could impact up to 500,000 federal positions, reclassifies policy-making jobs, putting them back under direct executive control. By strategically reclassifying these roles, the President can cut through bureaucratic red tape and remove the procedural barriers that have historically made it nearly impossible to fire underperforming or obstructive personnel. This reclassification allows the President to appoint officials who align with his vision, ensuring that policy-making roles are filled by those committed to delivering on the administration’s goals rather than preserving the status quo.
The modern federal government is bloated, with overlapping responsibilities and positions that often obstruct reform rather than serve the American people. Schedule F would directly address these inefficiencies by giving the President the authority to make impactful, strategic downsizing decisions—eliminating redundant roles and focusing on merit rather than tenure. The goal is not simply to reduce the workforce but to streamline operations, restore accountability, and align the federal body with the elected mandate.
This alignment is crucial because one of the biggest obstacles to effective governance is the ideological resistance entrenched within the bureaucracy. Federal employees often outlast any single administration, creating an environment inherently resistant to change. Schedule F allows the President to ensure that influential roles are filled by those who support the administration’s vision, eliminating entrenched barriers to reform. Critics argue that this could politicize the workforce, but in reality, it depoliticizes policy implementation by removing ideologically-driven obstructionism. The result is a government that functions as intended—an extension of the President’s vision, responsive, efficient, and focused on achieving tangible results.
Beyond ensuring ideological alignment, Schedule F can help foster a culture of accountability similar to that of the private sector. Federal employees in key positions would be subject to performance standards, and incompetence or resistance to reform could be addressed without bureaucratic delays. Imagine a federal workforce where job security is based on performance—not outdated protections—where high performers are rewarded and those who fail to deliver are replaced. This shift is essential for fostering a culture that values effectiveness, transparency, and purpose, ultimately making the government accountable to taxpayers. By reinstating Schedule F, the President can take meaningful steps to dismantle a bloated bureaucracy and create a leaner, more responsive government that delivers real results for the American people.
Cutting bureaucratic fat through Schedule F ensures that each role within federal employment serves a purpose. It eliminates redundant positions, aligns the workforce with executive priorities, and reinstates accountability, making federal jobs subject to performance reviews rather than bureaucratic immunity. Such a change would restore taxpayer confidence and dismantle the entrenched bureaucracy—a legacy of the unchecked growth of the administrative state since World War II.
Reclaiming Presidential Authority: Impoundment and the Unitary Executive Theory
Another crucial tactic is reasserting presidential power over federal spending through impoundment, a power that was severely weakened by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974. In response to President Nixon's bold use of impoundment to control federal spending, Congress passed the ICA to limit the President’s ability to withhold or delay funding, effectively stripping future Presidents of this essential authority. Before the ICA, Presidents from Jefferson to Kennedy exercised impoundment to prevent wasteful spending, aligning expenditures with their executive priorities. The ICA's restrictions transformed the President from a steward of taxpayer funds into a mere bookkeeper, obligated to spend every dollar as Congress dictates, regardless of necessity or effectiveness.
The Unitary Executive Theory provides the constitutional basis for reclaiming impoundment authority. At its core, this theory emphasizes that all executive power rests solely with the President, as articulated in Article II of the Constitution. This authority allows the President to execute laws with judgment, including managing federal funds prudently. Without this discretion, the President’s ability to effectively oversee the executive branch is compromised. The Supreme Court’s decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) further reinforces this idea, asserting that certain powers belong exclusively to the President, especially in areas central to executive function.
By embracing the Unitary Executive Theory, President Trump could argue for the restoration of impoundment authority as a legitimate tool for ensuring fiscal discipline. This move would allow the President to halt unnecessary spending and rein in agency budgets that have far exceeded their original scope, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It’s about prioritizing the efficient use of taxpayer dollars and aligning federal spending with the administration’s vision, rather than letting bureaucratic inertia dictate national priorities. Reclaiming this power is not only practical governance but a necessary reassertion of constitutional authority to prevent Congress from overreaching into executive responsibilities.
A Trump administration committed to impoundment could curtail unnecessary spending within federal agencies, using judicial precedents such as Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) to assert that Congress cannot micromanage executive action, especially in managing government resources. Reclaiming impoundment not only saves taxpayer money but ensures that every federal dollar spent reflects executive intent—an essential step in reversing the unchecked expansion of regulatory agencies that stifles both liberty and efficiency.
Utilizing Budget Reconciliation to Achieve Workforce Reduction
One of the most effective strategies for shrinking the federal workforce within the first 100 days is through budget reconciliation—a powerful legislative tool that allows budget-related bills to pass the Senate with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. Given that the Democrats have enough votes to block almost all legislation through a filibuster, budget reconciliation is the only realistic way for President Trump to get major workforce reduction legislation through the Senate, as it allows the GOP to pass bills with just 51 votes. The budget reconciliation process, established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, was specifically designed to facilitate adjustments to federal spending, revenue, and deficits, removing barriers to enact changes efficiently. By framing a workforce reduction bill to focus strictly on budgetary impacts, the Trump administration can navigate the Byrd Rule, which prevents non-budgetary provisions from being included, and thus avoid partisan gridlock.
To comply with reconciliation guidelines, the proposal would need to focus exclusively on reducing personnel-related costs, such as payroll, benefits, and administrative expenses. Structuring the legislation around specified cuts to agency budgets or mandatory percentage reductions in headcount would ensure compliance with reconciliation's fiscal parameters. This approach would avoid challenges under the Byrd Rule, which blocks provisions where the budgetary impact is deemed 'merely incidental' to broader policy changes.
Historically, reconciliation has been used to enact substantial fiscal reforms, and leveraging it to reduce the federal workforce would underscore a commitment to fiscal discipline. This strategy aligns perfectly with Trump’s promise to streamline government, reduce unnecessary spending, and rein in bureaucratic overreach—an endeavor that resonates strongly with his supporters. The early days of Trump's term are ideal for implementing such bold action, as the momentum of a new administration provides a political advantage, allowing for swift passage of priority legislation. Utilizing budget reconciliation to reduce the workforce would set a powerful precedent and demonstrate the administration's determination to achieve meaningful change without the burden of partisan obstruction.
Mandating the Return to Office: Enforcing Accountability
The pandemic brought about a shift to remote work that persists across the federal government, with less than 30% of federal workers attending the office five days a week and many working far fewer than 40 hours. To restore accountability, we must require federal workers to return to their desks—five days a week, eight hours a day. It is estimated that enforcing such a requirement could lead as many as 20% of federal employees to quit. With an estimated 2.5 million workers, a 20% resignation rate could see 500,000 federal employees voluntarily leave their posts, resulting in massive savings in payroll, benefits, and operational costs. Over ten years, the potential savings would be monumental, freeing billions that could be redirected toward paying down the national debt or reinvested in infrastructure.
Decentralizing Federal Agencies: Moving Agencies Outside of D.C.
Washington, D.C. has become an entrenched power center, far removed from the people it is supposed to serve. One effective method of reducing federal workforce size—while simultaneously breaking the culture of bureaucratic stagnation—would be to decentralize federal agencies, moving them to other states. The Department of Agriculture in Kansas City, or the Bureau of Land Management in Utah, would not only make the federal government more responsive to regional needs but would likely see many employees unwilling to relocate, thereby effectively reducing the workforce. Additionally, decentralization creates significant cost reductions by utilizing cheaper office space outside of the D.C. bubble while fostering a workforce more attuned to the needs of the nation as a whole, rather than the self-contained interests of the capital.
Other Ideas
Conservative think tanks offer no shortage of innovative approaches to assist the Trump administration in achieving workforce reduction goals. One key strategy involves reducing regulatory duplication—streamlining agencies with overlapping mandates. By consolidating their operations, administrative overhead can be reduced while enhancing overall effectiveness. Instituting zero-based budgeting across all federal departments would force agencies to justify every dollar of proposed spending rather than relying on previous budgets as a baseline. This ensures each agency is scaled efficiently to its current mission, rather than simply expanding year after year.
Another approach suggests prioritizing private sector outsourcing where appropriate. By transferring non-critical services to private firms, the Trump administration could introduce competition, thereby driving down costs and improving service quality—a win-win for taxpayers. Finally, creating a personnel database of vetted, trained, and ideologically aligned staff would allow for rapid deployment to ensure alignment in critical roles from day one.
Conclusion: A Call to Action for Lean Government
The first 100 days of the Trump administration must be bold, determined, and focused on reshaping the federal government into a leaner, more efficient body. With Elon Musk as the unofficial czar of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), this transformative effort has the potential to deliver real results. Musk's history with ventures like Tesla, SpaceX, and his rapid restructuring of Twitter (now X) demonstrates his ability to disrupt inefficient systems and optimize operations. He has repeatedly shown that he is willing to make tough decisions and push for bold restructuring—exactly what is needed to overhaul the federal bureaucracy.
The DOGE initiative, with Musk and a team of sharp reformers like Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron Paul, and David Sacks, is uniquely positioned to bring the same level of disruptive innovation to the federal government that they have successfully brought to the private sector. By applying principles of accountability, performance metrics, and efficiency, Musk and his team can help transform the DOGE initiative into a vehicle for real, lasting government reform.
To achieve these reforms, the administration can implement several key strategies: reinstating Schedule F to streamline bureaucracy, reclaiming impoundment to regain presidential control over runaway spending, using budget reconciliation to reduce workforce size, mandating a return to in-office work, and decentralizing agencies. The DOGE team, under Musk's leadership, can be instrumental in this transformation. Musk's success with SpaceX, which revolutionized the stagnant and costly government-run space program, exemplifies how private-sector innovation can breathe new life into outdated government structures. Before SpaceX, launching rockets was a bureaucratic, slow, and incredibly expensive government monopoly. Musk changed that by implementing cost-saving measures, promoting rapid innovation, and prioritizing efficiency.
The same principles that drove SpaceX's success—accountability, performance-driven metrics, and relentless innovation—can be applied to federal operations to create a lean, agile government focused on serving the American people. By leveraging expertise from outside reformers and private-sector leaders, President Trump’s efforts to reduce the federal bureaucracy will ensure that the government serves the people efficiently, transparently, and effectively. This is a unique opportunity to shape a government that reflects its founding principles—lean, responsive, and truly accountable to the citizens it serves.
If you don’t already, please follow me on 𝕏 at https://x.com/amuse