“Chaos.” That seems to be America’s go-to descriptor for the federal government since January 20. Depending on who you ask, US president Donald Trump, “special government employee” Elon Musk, and their “Department of Government Efficiency” are either cutting a bunch of government waste and inefficiency, or gutting a bunch of useful and necessary government functionality. Some people are very sure of which, but nobody seems very clued in to how.

So I asked Grok, the generative AI chatbot associated with Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) platform, to “suggest the most efficient organizational chart for the federal government’s executive branch.”

Grok’s reply (summarized):

First, the ol’ “unitary executive” theory with the president “as the executive power’s focal point.”

Secondly, a “lean inner circle” consisting of the White House chief of staff, the vice-president as a “flexible deputy,” and three “directors” — one for Security,” one for “Prosperity,” and one for “Governance” — with the 15 cabinet secretaries getting demoted to “deputy directors” and agency heads either “slotting” into those “buckets” or reporting to the chief of staff.

This setup, Grok tells me, “trims the fat” and provides “clearer chains of command” and “less duplication.”

I don’t know that Grok necessarily speaks for Musk, but I’d be surprised to learn he hadn’t asked it this sort of question himself, and when I read that answer I keep coming back to another question:

What should we want government be “efficient” AT?

The assumption underlying Grok’s answer is that government should be efficient at centralizing power into 1) as few hands as possible, and 2) hands that are loyal to and answerable to one person (the president) rather than to any higher power (the US Constitution, for example) or to any moral principle other than  the German Third Reich’s “fuhrerprinzip” or “leader principle.”

A snippet from Grok’s summary of the fuhrerprinzip itself: “In essence, it was a cult of personality masquerading as a governance model, designed to consolidate power and eliminate dissent.”

If Musk’s AI model reflects his own thinking, we may have our answer as to whether his controversial gesture at Trump’s inauguration was or wasn’t a “Nazi salute.”

I’m personally enjoying the chaos, at least a little, but not because I want “efficiency” or centralization of state power into the hands of one man and his loyalists. I want a weaker state, not a just smaller and less expensive state. I don’t trust Trump or Musk to deliver.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On February 18, investor/entrepreneur James Fishback posted a suggestion to X: “President Trump and @ElonMusk should announce a ‘DOGE Dividend’ — a tax refund check sent to every taxpayer, funded exclusively with a portion of the total savings delivered by DOGE.”

Musk responded: “Will check with the President.”

The following day, speaking at the FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami, the president (Donald Trump) mused about “a new concept where we give 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% goes to paying down debt.”

It’s an easy idea to like. I mean, who DOESN’T want to receive a previously unexpected check in the mail?

And the way it’s rolling out feels rather fresh and spontaneous, doesn’t it?  X user has idea! X owner suggests it to the president! The president likes it! Boom!

I suppose Fishback might have just had a “lightbulb over head” moment and decided to throw it out there, but the Trump White House was probably planning something like this long before that tweet.

Why do I suspect that? Because the same president has done the same thing before, under similar circumstances.

When Americans’ finances took a big hit from COVID-19, Trump leapt into action with two rounds of “stimulus checks” — one for $1,200 and a second for $600 — for most Americans.

Naturally, the checks bore the signature “Donald J. Trump,” so that everyone would know who to praise and thank, and hopefully never notice that the money was borrowed in their names with principal and interest to be taken out of their hides later.

This time around, the sucker punch will come in a more diffuse form for most Americans. Trump’s tariffs and other trade war moves will cost the average household somewhere between $1,000 and $5,000 per year (estimates vary, but few other than Trump himself pretend his plans will drive your cost of living DOWN).

You’ll pay more for food. You’ll pay more for clothes.  You’ll pay more for consumer electronics. Unless you’re buying a car or a home the hurt will come in little bits — no single one especially traumatic, but the overall impact very unpleasant.

That “DOGE Dividend” check, if it comes, will just be Trump trying to buy back your love with your own money, to partially and insufficiently make up for the damage he’s doing to you.

Like an abusive husband who shows up with flowers and an ice pack the day after he works his wife over with a baseball bat, Trump desperately wants you to believe he loves you very much, that he didn’t really mean it, honey.

Cash the check, but don’t fool yourself into believing you’re getting something for nothing. Like the wife in the analogy, you’ll be seeing that bat again.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Whenever the insanely high level of federal government spending comes up — which is every time federal government spending comes up — federal government spenders immediately trot out a fake solution.

Eliminating “fraud, waste, and abuse” in their spending, they tell us, will magically bring their spending into line with their revenues. No more deficits! Decreasing accrued debt! Lower taxes!

It never “works,” of course. It’s not even really meant to “work.” It’s just meant to distract the American public with some convenient scapegoats while the politicians debate whether to spend a little more or a lot more than previously.

I do have to say, though, that I’ve been mildly positively impressed with the latest iteration of that old trick, Donald Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency.”

Even for those who believe there’s such a thing as “legitimate” government spending and don’t want the baby thrown out with the bathwater (I’m with the late Harry Browne, who noted “we have to remember — it’s Rosemary’s Baby“), it seems like the Trump administration is accomplishing at least some positive public service with government employment buyouts, reining in USAID, etc.

Maybe we WILL actually see a more “efficient” executive branch out of all this, an organization with fewer extraneous employees and with less inclination to pay (an old example) $435 for a $15 hammer.

But without congressional action to cut spending, it will all end up costing us at least as much, and probably more, than it did before.

Congress, not the president, decides how much money gets appropriated (that is, taxed or borrowed) and what kinds of things it gets spent on.

The only powers the president possesses on that subject are the power to suggest budgets, the power to veto budgets including appropriation amounts he disagrees with — Congress can override him on that — and the power to execute (hence the executive branch’s name) Congress’s instructions.

If a particular government unit receives a budget of $1 billion, then DOGE detects and Trump excises $100 million worth of “fraud, waste, and abuse” from its operations — but Congress keeps that unit’s budget at $1 billion, we MIGHT see “better” or “more efficient” use of that $1 billion, but we’re not seeing any actual reduction in the cost of government.

The House Budget Committee claims that its budget resolution for 2025 through 2034 will “reduce deficits by $14 trillion over the next decade.” Last year’s deficit was $1.9 trillion. Stretched out over a decade, the proposed reduction would still leave an average deficit (borrowed and added to the national debt) of $500 billion per year.

Any ten-year plan is suspect (subsequent Congresses can, and always do, abandon it).

A ten-year plan that forecasts $8.7 trillion in cuts to “mandatory” programs like Medicare is likely dead on arrival.

If Congress isn’t serious about substantial cuts to “discretionary” spending, especially on “defense” (the proposal “preserves critical defense spending”), Congress isn’t serious about cutting spending, period.

Enjoy the DOGE and DOGE-adjacent activities if you like them, but don’t expect them to accomplish much where the cost of government is concerned.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY