Trump, Musk, Ramaswamy, and the High-Stakes Push to Slash Government Spending Facing Tough Questions

WASHINGTON, DC — Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to spearhead a new advisory body, the Department of Government Efficiency, aimed at identifying and eliminating what they call “wasteful spending” in the federal budget. While the commission’s goal of cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget by July 2026 has generated widespread attention, experts say the path to achieving such reductions is riddled with logistical and political hurdles.

Unlike formal government departments, the Department of Government Efficiency operates as an advisory commission, requiring neither congressional approval for its creation nor Senate confirmation for its leaders. This structure gives Musk and Ramaswamy latitude to recommend sweeping changes without needing to adhere to the traditional regulatory frameworks governing federal agencies. However, actual implementation of such recommendations, including program cuts or workforce reductions, will still depend on legislative and executive actions.

Spending Cuts: Targets and Challenges

Musk and Ramaswamy have signaled their intent to slash funding for federal agencies and programs they deem redundant, including entities like NPR, PBS, and Planned Parenthood. Musk has also advocated for dismantling agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which he described as duplicative. Ramaswamy has echoed these sentiments, pledging on social media to take a “chainsaw” to government spending.

In an op-ed, the pair criticized the federal bureaucracy as an existential threat to the republic, advocating for an “entrepreneurial” approach to governance. They also expressed a willingness to pursue executive actions to enact cuts, potentially bypassing Congress; a move likely to provoke constitutional challenges.

Despite their ambitious goals, fiscal analysts point to structural constraints that make such drastic cuts improbable. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which together account for the largest share of federal spending, are mandatory programs that require significant legislative changes to modify. Defense spending, another major budget item, has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, with increases expected under the next Congress.

“Even if you eliminated entire departments like Education or significantly reduced staffing levels, it wouldn’t add up to $2 trillion,” said a government spending analyst.

Federal Workforce Cuts: Limited Impact

One potential focus for reductions is the federal workforce, which costs approximately $300 billion annually in salaries and benefits, excluding military personnel. While Musk and Ramaswamy have called for reducing bureaucratic inefficiency by cutting staff, experts argue this approach would only account for about 4% of total federal spending. Moreover, layoffs would likely result in delays or interruptions to essential services such as Social Security benefits and veterans’ programs.

“This level of reduction would have a profound impact on the ability of the federal government to function,” the analyst added.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

Musk and Ramaswamy’s proposals also face significant constitutional questions. The duo has argued that the president should have the authority to unilaterally cut spending approved by Congress, a stance that could upend established checks and balances. With a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, they believe the time is ripe for challenging existing norms, though the outcome of such litigation remains uncertain.

Political Hurdles Ahead

The success of the Department of Government Efficiency hinges not only on executive actions but also on congressional cooperation; a daunting prospect given the political risks of enacting deep spending cuts. Lawmakers would likely face backlash from constituents affected by program reductions, raising questions about the political feasibility of Musk and Ramaswamy’s vision.