He has none. Doge keeps changing and covering up their findings. First it was 150 year old people, then it was 11 year olds. They don’t understand government systems. They lie and destroy. You can’t create ‘efficiency’ when you don’t understand the system!
Excellent, thoughtful, incisive, reporting and analysis. As Mr. Craig mentioned though, this coup d'état doesn't seem to have been recognized as such, nor has it penetrated the major news or commentary outlets...at least in such a trenchant fashion as to be noticeable by the general public or its "representatives."
It seems now that the Legislative Branch (both parties included) has been reduced to the functional equivalent of a post-January, 1933 "Enabling Act" status in Germany or the Russian Duma under Putin: an echo chamber for the autocrat in the case of Republicans and an opportunity for hypocritical, sanctimonious, effete and humiliating posturing by "the opposition party".
Not to be overlooked though, is the propellant and lubricating judicial rulings from the erstwhile "independent and impartial" Judicial Branch.
No schadenfreude on my part, but as the late cartoonist, Walt Kelly wrote in 1970, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
I am shocked at a publication lead by some people I consider at least rather classical liberal objecting to Musk's attempt to direct Trump's administration in a classical-liberal direction.
I suppose you would hate any Trump advisor.
I am not a Trump fan. I am a libertarian in my outlook. And I think what Musk is trying to do deserves more respect.
But if you think massive deficits and every growing economic regulation is great, then just declare yourselves socialists.
Seriously dismayed and shocked that you, of all people, Will, are failing to recognize that the issue here is bigger than deficits or government regulations. If you want to call us socialists, perhaps you can consider calling yourself an authoritarian. This regime after all is imposing unprecedented tariffs and mass deportations. Some libertarian!
Fact check: Reading the U.S. Constitution, Trump can grant and revoke clearances, he can audit his own branch of government (i.e., DOGE), and he can fire at will anyone he so chooses.
Musk cannot in himself be authoritarian in our constitutional system. The President can. But we have a constitution such as we do for reasons like this.
Musk is an advisor to the Trump administration, one pushing it to try to cut government spending substantially and deregulate. He himself recognizes that most this cannot be done without Congress's participation. Musk's statements as such have no legal bearing.
Again, the authoritarianism on display is Trump's..
Here is Brian Reidl of Manhattan Instiute with impeccable credentials as a fiscal hawk and small government advocate on what Musk was doing at USAID. Reidl actually understands the Constitution and the separation of powers between the two branches of government. He therefore gets that this is just plain subversion of the rule of law. What Musk is doing to Treasury is arguably worse because there he is not shutting down a department but commandeering it. There is no way to hold him accountable for any conflict of interest or corruption or polticization or weaponization to go after political enemies as he doesn't fall into any category of employees to whom these rules would apply. Do check out the new update to the piece in light of developments.
NYT is an unreliable organ of record. It is interesting how a child of the Left suddenly became an enemy of the Left when he decided leftist policy was destroying his city.
I have no idea the specifics of the case and I don't expect to learn them from legacy media.
Musk is illegally taking over and shutting federal departments and agencies without any constitutional or legal authority. Claiming that what he is doing is merely directing the administration towards a classical liberal direction is like saying Pinochet was merely directing the Chilean economy towards a neoliberal direction.
Pinochet had the army behind him in a country where military rule was a known thing. He was the government. The people you want to compare to Musk are in fact the "Chicago Boys," the free-market economic advisors that convinced Pinochet to steer the economy in a free-market direction.
Musk has no more real power than they. If Trump decides that he doesn't like the advice Musk is giving, that's it for Musk's influence.
Pincochet committed a coup and actually did not have the army behind as an attempted coup earlier in 1973 was crushed by the commander in chief of the army at that time, Carlos Prats, which was later assassinated by Pinochet. Pinochet was the illegal and dictatorial unelected government. Musk is not merely an advisor as he is giving orders and accessing systems that he has no legal authority to. Musk is Trump's illegal henchman and not merely and advisor.
Populism as I understand it is an election strategy where a person or party poses as a radical but really just accumulates more power for themselves and uses the state to benefit favored interest groups.
Is it populism, though, if you lead a movement to reduce the size of government? Is any attempt by an elected official to change the size and reach of government populism?
That is not really an accurate understanding of populism. I wrote an essay about what populism is and isn't. Populism is, in essence, strongman politics where a Dear Leader, who has the undying loyalty of dominant groups, thumbs his nose at the Constitution, check and balances, and parliamentary procedures, to smash institutions and remove protections for outgroups (rich people if left wing; immigrants, minoriites, and, now, evidently government employees, if right wing) and privileges in-groups (in this case Musk and his oligarch bros). That Trump and Musk are ignoring the most basic rules to keep executive power accountable should be deeply concerning to everyone, but especially libertarians. Trump and Musk could follow parliamentary rules to reduce the size and scope of government. But they are not. And when did creating a massive police state to conduct mass deportations or impose tariffs on foreign good become about reducing the size and scope of government? Musk was just favorably tweeting a plan to send American citizens convicted of crimes to El Salvador!! Musk might be a technological genius but here he is behaving like Dr. Strangelove and we shouldn't let our love for him blind us to the danger he poses to the rule of law and accountable government. https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/why-populism-and-authoritarianism
Musk is not a technological genius either. He's not a scientist, engineer or inventor of anything. He is probably one of the biggest frauds in human history. All of that is good that has come out of Tesla and SpaceX is due to the work of people like Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Mueller, Shotwell, Blackmore and countless other unnamed engineers and administrators.
Well here is the problem with not defining terms properly; Bc strictly & officially defined, populism is amoral - that is, it is merely an non-ideological political movement that seeks to harness mass democracy / the ‘average person’ and their concerns or complaints to political power (irrespective of party or socioeconomic and racial status, though it is usually anti-elite or establishment). That says nothing about such a movement being corrupt or disingenuous, whether it is good or bad politically, nor whether it is right or left wing. And yet even Unpopulist does not define this term clearly, adding to the confusion (though if you go back to its beginnings they vaguely link it solely to “right wing authoritarianism” and “Trump” which gives a lot away of their purpose again). So to A your Q, yes populism could be used to cut down government, and that would actually *be* a movement that advances liberal values. Which is why terms need to be clearly defined so that something like a political movement and its aims and methods be honestly evaluated as such, rather than dismissing it outright via straw manning or ad hominem fallacies about individual characters such as Trump or Elon.
The trouble is not us not defining terms properly. We have defined what populism means to us ad nauseam. We have created surveys based on a rigorous, four-part model of populism and published several essays reporting on our findings. I have written essays, done podcasts explicating what populism is and isn't. The problem is readers who'd rather make accusations instead of doing their homework before weighing in. Here's something to get you started. Feel free to dig into this website for more where this came from. https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/why-populism-and-authoritarianism
Now who’s making accusations?? I did in fact read your piece (which came out 3 years after the fact, mostly post-hoc rationalizing your own arbitrary narrow ‘definition’ of the phenomenon as right wing strong man-ism, to justify the publication’s reflexive anti-Trumpism & focus). I have continued following you in hopes of actually being enlightened on a complete & fair treatment of the subject of illiberalism in the west, but find it repeatedly lacking in objectivity & therefore insufficient to correctly address its purported problems.
If you had really read the piece, you would have found an answer to why populism is not merely "amoral." It is ideologically amphidexterous, able to attach itself to the right or left. But in both cases it involves doing an end run around parliamentary procedures and eliminating constitutional protections for disfavored individuals or groups. So, no, it is not morally neutral.
Populism simply put is purporting to represent the will of the common people and yes you could be a populist and lead movement to "reduce the size of government". Trump is not leading a movement reducing the size of government although he does have clueless and mendacious Rorthbardians as part of his movement with the excuse of "reducing size of government".
Thanks, Andy, for bringing attention and clarity to something that is being ignored.
This is by far the greatest violation of laws, norms and guardrails ever perpetrated by an individual at the behest of a President. This actually makes all of Trump's other crimes look like child's play.
I can't believe that Democrats are not saying/doing anything to stop this. I know they have limited options but at least they could use the platform of their office to point out the wreckage being done.
Kash Patel needs to be asked if he is Director of the FBI and the DOJ orders an investigation into Musk's activities that he will follow the evidence and the law.
Mass firings not related to merit, unauthorized buyouts and threats of mass firings of all 2.2 million employees, requiring pledges of loyalty, seizing computer systems while locking out the actual department officials and freezing government funding is not conducting an audit by any definition of the word.
Your own piece disproves your entire thesis: Article II gives POTUS the power to appoint all officers of the US (most of which today do not require senate advice & consent) which is all that’s been done here. He serves at the president’s (& therefore the sovereign voters who elected him) pleasure, no more no less.
Do read the piece. If Trump had lawfully appointed Musk, you'd be right. The point is that Trump has not done so and is not stopping Musk from simply taking over government agencies.
I did read it; do read my first sentence again. He appointed Musk months ago in the investigative & advisory capacity in which he is presently acting. Your piece is much ado about nothing (per usual on all matters Trump related of course), and any authority he might be exercising beyond that is merely by grant of the president’s delegating his own (& which executive powers are plenary to the president, who is still subject to all the constitutional checks & balances). This isn’t hard.
"Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” Somehow, Trump and Musk have managed to find a constitutional provision so basic and uncontested that nobody has ever even thought of violating it before: acting as (you could accurately call it impersonating) a government officer without having any formal documentation as one. Receiving a commission from the president is more than a technicality—it ensures that every federal officer derives their authority from a constitutional process. The commissioning process is how public servants are legally empowered to act on behalf of the government. Musk has received no such warrant, and yet he is running amok, interfering with lawful federal functions with impunity. This bypasses the fundamental constitutional requirement that all government officers derive their power through lawful appointment and are accountable to the people, either directly or through elected representatives."
How does " investigate and advise" turn into "close agencies and fire people"?? He's WAY outside his remit and he needs to be hauled out of there, physically.
As noted, you just disproved your thesis (again). He was commissioned by the President. Via the executive order you also acknowledged that was signed (and which you omitted the critical fact that it established an administrative head of the department who sits under the executive office of the president & reports to the COS; I wonder why that was omitted??…).
You don't understand what commissioning means. An executive order is not commissioning. You need to go and learn how an officer of the US is actually commissioned.
No you're the one who doesn't understand you muppet. You made a claim about him being commissioned by the president. He was never commissioned. Instead of accepting how wrong you are you're retorting like a child "no you don't understand".
My new approach on news/politics articles: if it doesn't contain information on *what* to do, I'm not reading it. I know this country is in a very bad place, I don't need to keep reading chapter and verse by every last writer with an opinion.
Who knew it would be so easy to non-violently overthrow our government with zero push back from Congress.
Department of Grifters and Extortionists
Actually, they're taking down multiple departments of drifters and extortionists.
Your proof?
He has none. Doge keeps changing and covering up their findings. First it was 150 year old people, then it was 11 year olds. They don’t understand government systems. They lie and destroy. You can’t create ‘efficiency’ when you don’t understand the system!
Excellent, thoughtful, incisive, reporting and analysis. As Mr. Craig mentioned though, this coup d'état doesn't seem to have been recognized as such, nor has it penetrated the major news or commentary outlets...at least in such a trenchant fashion as to be noticeable by the general public or its "representatives."
It seems now that the Legislative Branch (both parties included) has been reduced to the functional equivalent of a post-January, 1933 "Enabling Act" status in Germany or the Russian Duma under Putin: an echo chamber for the autocrat in the case of Republicans and an opportunity for hypocritical, sanctimonious, effete and humiliating posturing by "the opposition party".
Not to be overlooked though, is the propellant and lubricating judicial rulings from the erstwhile "independent and impartial" Judicial Branch.
No schadenfreude on my part, but as the late cartoonist, Walt Kelly wrote in 1970, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
It just needs Hugo Boss to design the uniforms...
I am shocked at a publication lead by some people I consider at least rather classical liberal objecting to Musk's attempt to direct Trump's administration in a classical-liberal direction.
I suppose you would hate any Trump advisor.
I am not a Trump fan. I am a libertarian in my outlook. And I think what Musk is trying to do deserves more respect.
But if you think massive deficits and every growing economic regulation is great, then just declare yourselves socialists.
Seriously dismayed and shocked that you, of all people, Will, are failing to recognize that the issue here is bigger than deficits or government regulations. If you want to call us socialists, perhaps you can consider calling yourself an authoritarian. This regime after all is imposing unprecedented tariffs and mass deportations. Some libertarian!
Fact check: Reading the U.S. Constitution, Trump can grant and revoke clearances, he can audit his own branch of government (i.e., DOGE), and he can fire at will anyone he so chooses.
Musk cannot in himself be authoritarian in our constitutional system. The President can. But we have a constitution such as we do for reasons like this.
Musk is an advisor to the Trump administration, one pushing it to try to cut government spending substantially and deregulate. He himself recognizes that most this cannot be done without Congress's participation. Musk's statements as such have no legal bearing.
Again, the authoritarianism on display is Trump's..
Here is Brian Reidl of Manhattan Instiute with impeccable credentials as a fiscal hawk and small government advocate on what Musk was doing at USAID. Reidl actually understands the Constitution and the separation of powers between the two branches of government. He therefore gets that this is just plain subversion of the rule of law. What Musk is doing to Treasury is arguably worse because there he is not shutting down a department but commandeering it. There is no way to hold him accountable for any conflict of interest or corruption or polticization or weaponization to go after political enemies as he doesn't fall into any category of employees to whom these rules would apply. Do check out the new update to the piece in light of developments.
https://x.com/Brian_Riedl/status/1886447518302560351
Do read the piece.
If rooting out corruption is authoritarian, we need a lot more of it.
Whut???? Actually, cooperating with this regime's authoritarianism is a get-out-of-jail free card for even corrupt Democratic politicians. You are going to get a corrupt and an authoritarian state bigly! https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/10/nyregion/eric-adams-charges?smid=url-share
NYT is an unreliable organ of record. It is interesting how a child of the Left suddenly became an enemy of the Left when he decided leftist policy was destroying his city.
I have no idea the specifics of the case and I don't expect to learn them from legacy media.
Authoritarianism or executive leadership?
Musk is illegally taking over and shutting federal departments and agencies without any constitutional or legal authority. Claiming that what he is doing is merely directing the administration towards a classical liberal direction is like saying Pinochet was merely directing the Chilean economy towards a neoliberal direction.
Pinochet had the army behind him in a country where military rule was a known thing. He was the government. The people you want to compare to Musk are in fact the "Chicago Boys," the free-market economic advisors that convinced Pinochet to steer the economy in a free-market direction.
Musk has no more real power than they. If Trump decides that he doesn't like the advice Musk is giving, that's it for Musk's influence.
Pincochet committed a coup and actually did not have the army behind as an attempted coup earlier in 1973 was crushed by the commander in chief of the army at that time, Carlos Prats, which was later assassinated by Pinochet. Pinochet was the illegal and dictatorial unelected government. Musk is not merely an advisor as he is giving orders and accessing systems that he has no legal authority to. Musk is Trump's illegal henchman and not merely and advisor.
Populism as I understand it is an election strategy where a person or party poses as a radical but really just accumulates more power for themselves and uses the state to benefit favored interest groups.
Is it populism, though, if you lead a movement to reduce the size of government? Is any attempt by an elected official to change the size and reach of government populism?
That is not really an accurate understanding of populism. I wrote an essay about what populism is and isn't. Populism is, in essence, strongman politics where a Dear Leader, who has the undying loyalty of dominant groups, thumbs his nose at the Constitution, check and balances, and parliamentary procedures, to smash institutions and remove protections for outgroups (rich people if left wing; immigrants, minoriites, and, now, evidently government employees, if right wing) and privileges in-groups (in this case Musk and his oligarch bros). That Trump and Musk are ignoring the most basic rules to keep executive power accountable should be deeply concerning to everyone, but especially libertarians. Trump and Musk could follow parliamentary rules to reduce the size and scope of government. But they are not. And when did creating a massive police state to conduct mass deportations or impose tariffs on foreign good become about reducing the size and scope of government? Musk was just favorably tweeting a plan to send American citizens convicted of crimes to El Salvador!! Musk might be a technological genius but here he is behaving like Dr. Strangelove and we shouldn't let our love for him blind us to the danger he poses to the rule of law and accountable government. https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/why-populism-and-authoritarianism
Musk is not a technological genius either. He's not a scientist, engineer or inventor of anything. He is probably one of the biggest frauds in human history. All of that is good that has come out of Tesla and SpaceX is due to the work of people like Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Mueller, Shotwell, Blackmore and countless other unnamed engineers and administrators.
That is not an accurate definition of populism.
Well here is the problem with not defining terms properly; Bc strictly & officially defined, populism is amoral - that is, it is merely an non-ideological political movement that seeks to harness mass democracy / the ‘average person’ and their concerns or complaints to political power (irrespective of party or socioeconomic and racial status, though it is usually anti-elite or establishment). That says nothing about such a movement being corrupt or disingenuous, whether it is good or bad politically, nor whether it is right or left wing. And yet even Unpopulist does not define this term clearly, adding to the confusion (though if you go back to its beginnings they vaguely link it solely to “right wing authoritarianism” and “Trump” which gives a lot away of their purpose again). So to A your Q, yes populism could be used to cut down government, and that would actually *be* a movement that advances liberal values. Which is why terms need to be clearly defined so that something like a political movement and its aims and methods be honestly evaluated as such, rather than dismissing it outright via straw manning or ad hominem fallacies about individual characters such as Trump or Elon.
The trouble is not us not defining terms properly. We have defined what populism means to us ad nauseam. We have created surveys based on a rigorous, four-part model of populism and published several essays reporting on our findings. I have written essays, done podcasts explicating what populism is and isn't. The problem is readers who'd rather make accusations instead of doing their homework before weighing in. Here's something to get you started. Feel free to dig into this website for more where this came from. https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/why-populism-and-authoritarianism
Now who’s making accusations?? I did in fact read your piece (which came out 3 years after the fact, mostly post-hoc rationalizing your own arbitrary narrow ‘definition’ of the phenomenon as right wing strong man-ism, to justify the publication’s reflexive anti-Trumpism & focus). I have continued following you in hopes of actually being enlightened on a complete & fair treatment of the subject of illiberalism in the west, but find it repeatedly lacking in objectivity & therefore insufficient to correctly address its purported problems.
If you had really read the piece, you would have found an answer to why populism is not merely "amoral." It is ideologically amphidexterous, able to attach itself to the right or left. But in both cases it involves doing an end run around parliamentary procedures and eliminating constitutional protections for disfavored individuals or groups. So, no, it is not morally neutral.
Populism simply put is purporting to represent the will of the common people and yes you could be a populist and lead movement to "reduce the size of government". Trump is not leading a movement reducing the size of government although he does have clueless and mendacious Rorthbardians as part of his movement with the excuse of "reducing size of government".
Can someone maybe tell Chuck Schumer about this Musk problem? Schumer’s lifeless response to this crisis is the last thing we need right now.
Thanks, Andy, for bringing attention and clarity to something that is being ignored.
This is by far the greatest violation of laws, norms and guardrails ever perpetrated by an individual at the behest of a President. This actually makes all of Trump's other crimes look like child's play.
I can't believe that Democrats are not saying/doing anything to stop this. I know they have limited options but at least they could use the platform of their office to point out the wreckage being done.
Kash Patel needs to be asked if he is Director of the FBI and the DOJ orders an investigation into Musk's activities that he will follow the evidence and the law.
It is pronounced dodgy.
Why hasn’t someone sued?
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/04/treasury-sued-doge-sensitive-information-musk-trump
This would be a civil suit. Do the unions have standing to sue? The fired civil servant would definitely have standing. I wonder how this will go.
I'm waiting for what I hope is going to be an epic class-action lawsuit.
Couple of points:
1) Trump has complete authority over the Executive Branch. He can grant and revoke clearances at will, unless I missed that part of the Constitution.
2) Trump rightfully demanded an external audit of the Executive Branch by DOGE. Again, completely within his legal purview.
3) This external audit appears to be revealing the greatest corruption scandal in U.S. history starting (but not ending) with USAID.
All predicted by substacker bad cattitude months ago:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/doge-and-the-budget-audit-of-doom?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=323914&post_id=156411898&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ch1ue&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
DOGE and the budget audit of doom
Mass firings not related to merit, unauthorized buyouts and threats of mass firings of all 2.2 million employees, requiring pledges of loyalty, seizing computer systems while locking out the actual department officials and freezing government funding is not conducting an audit by any definition of the word.
You didn't specify anything related to the Constitution or laws.
USAID is done.
It was a giant money-laundering operation that apparently funded Covid.
DOGE is just getting started.
Is the acronym, DOGE, accidental - or does it represent an insidious revelation of dictatorial intent?
In good 21st century style, I suggest Googling "Doge."
Your own piece disproves your entire thesis: Article II gives POTUS the power to appoint all officers of the US (most of which today do not require senate advice & consent) which is all that’s been done here. He serves at the president’s (& therefore the sovereign voters who elected him) pleasure, no more no less.
Do read the piece. If Trump had lawfully appointed Musk, you'd be right. The point is that Trump has not done so and is not stopping Musk from simply taking over government agencies.
I did read it; do read my first sentence again. He appointed Musk months ago in the investigative & advisory capacity in which he is presently acting. Your piece is much ado about nothing (per usual on all matters Trump related of course), and any authority he might be exercising beyond that is merely by grant of the president’s delegating his own (& which executive powers are plenary to the president, who is still subject to all the constitutional checks & balances). This isn’t hard.
"Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” Somehow, Trump and Musk have managed to find a constitutional provision so basic and uncontested that nobody has ever even thought of violating it before: acting as (you could accurately call it impersonating) a government officer without having any formal documentation as one. Receiving a commission from the president is more than a technicality—it ensures that every federal officer derives their authority from a constitutional process. The commissioning process is how public servants are legally empowered to act on behalf of the government. Musk has received no such warrant, and yet he is running amok, interfering with lawful federal functions with impunity. This bypasses the fundamental constitutional requirement that all government officers derive their power through lawful appointment and are accountable to the people, either directly or through elected representatives."
How does " investigate and advise" turn into "close agencies and fire people"?? He's WAY outside his remit and he needs to be hauled out of there, physically.
It’s the president making those calls & exercising that power, not Elon. Which they have both repeatedly noted. This isn’t hard.
As noted, you just disproved your thesis (again). He was commissioned by the President. Via the executive order you also acknowledged that was signed (and which you omitted the critical fact that it established an administrative head of the department who sits under the executive office of the president & reports to the COS; I wonder why that was omitted??…).
You don't understand what commissioning means. An executive order is not commissioning. You need to go and learn how an officer of the US is actually commissioned.
You don’t understand how the executive office of the president works. You need to go and learn how the executive branch works.
No you're the one who doesn't understand you muppet. You made a claim about him being commissioned by the president. He was never commissioned. Instead of accepting how wrong you are you're retorting like a child "no you don't understand".
Imprison Musk!
Even Republican senators are admitting that what is happening is unconstitutional but it's ok because Trump is just "flexing a little"
Charlie Chaplin played the part much better.
My new approach on news/politics articles: if it doesn't contain information on *what* to do, I'm not reading it. I know this country is in a very bad place, I don't need to keep reading chapter and verse by every last writer with an opinion.