This is a free excerpt from one of Shortform’s Articles. We give you all the important information you need to know about current events and more.
Don't miss out on the whole story. Sign up for a free trial here .
What would it take to slash $2 trillion from the U.S. federal budget? Can Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy actually achieve this ambitious goal?
The proposed Department of Government Efficiency, led by Musk and Ramaswamy, aims to cut 30% of federal spending through agency consolidation, workforce reduction, and regulatory streamlining. While Ramaswamy and Musk’s $2 trillion target seems staggering, their track records provide some hope.
Read on to discover why experts are divided on this bold plan to reshape US government spending.
Image credit: Free Malaysia Today (license)
Ramaswamy & Musk’s $2 Trillion Target
With recommendations from the proposed Department of Government Efficiency (led by Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk), $2 trillion could be cut from the US federal budget. This amount is larger than the entire discretionary budget. Hurdles include legal restrictions, resistance from both parties, and practical challenges of cutting a workforce that’s already at historic lows. But, even if cutting $2 trillion isn’t fully achieved, the initiative could shift public attitudes about government spending and normalize future agency reductions.
We’ll examine experts’ views on the matter.
Background
In November 2024, President-elect Donald Trump appointed billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk and former pharmaceutical executive Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). He has tasked the nongovernmental advisory commission with identifying ways to cut $2 trillion (30%) in federal spending from the nation’s $6.75 trillion budget.
Proponents say DOGE will deliver savings by eliminating government bureaucracy, cutting unnecessary regulations, and substantially reducing the federal workforce. The department suggests achieving these goals by:
- Consolidating federal agencies
- Using recent Supreme Court rulings that limit federal agencies’ power to make rules
- Mandating full-time office attendance for federal workers—a policy the administration expects will prompt voluntary departures
Musk’s Track Record
Musk has long pushed for efficiency in his own endeavors. In the book Elon Musk, Walter Isaacson writes about Musk’s method for streamlining systems. First, he demands that engineers and designers question each supposedly necessary mandate, such as what materials to use, how many lines of code a program needs, or even what safety measures should be followed. Next, Musk demands that any process or component of a system that can be deleted should be. Once that’s been done, whatever’s left in a product or procedure should be optimized and accelerated.
According to Isaacson, the first thing Musk did when he bought Twitter was to have teams from SpaceX and Tesla evaluate Twitter’s software engineering department with an eye toward reducing the company’s size. Layoffs targeted inefficient coders, staff who were potentially disloyal to Musk, and anyone who wasn’t willing to maintain the frantic pace of work that Musk preferred. The latter round of layoffs was self-driven—Musk explained his workplace expectations and gave Twitter’s remaining staff the option to “opt in” or take severance.
Ramaswamy’s Track Record
In his book Truths, Vivek Ramaswamy argues that the growing power of the administrative state poses a significant threat to the balance of governmental powers in the US. This administrative framework has effectively created an unofficial “fourth branch” of government that bypasses constitutional checks and balances designed to ensure democratic accountability.
Ramaswamy advocates for decisive action to reform this system that includes the following:
- Identify and eliminate unconstitutional regulations
- Reduce unnecessary administrative personnel
- Eliminate excessive civil service protections
- Relocate federal agencies away from Washington, DC
- Using existing “reduction in force” provisions to streamline the bureaucracy
- Encouraging voluntary departures through agency relocation
These measures aim to restore the constitutional balance of power and ensure that governmental authority remains properly accountable to the American people.
Is the $2 Trillion Cut Possible?
Experts are divided on whether cutting $2 trillion in spending is possible, though most agree it will be an uphill battle.
Arguments for the High Goal
Supporters of DOGE’s $2 trillion cut say the federal government’s 180,000 pages of regulations offer a vast target for streamlining. They also say significant additional savings could come from consolidating the military’s four separate air forces operating across different branches.
Why Critics Have Doubts
Others argue the cuts are numerically impossible due to several factors:
- Protected spending—About 56% of the federal budget might be off-limits:
- 33% of the budget funds Medicare and Social Security, which Trump has pledged not to cut.
- 13% goes to defense, which Trump expanded in his first term.
- 10% covers legally required debt interest payments that, if eliminated, would mean defaulting on obligations to lenders, which could trigger higher interest rates and a recession.
- Limited discretionary funds—The entire pool of discretionary federal spending (allocations not locked in by law) totals just $1.7 trillion—making $2 trillion in cuts mathematically impossible without touching protected areas.
- Few remaining targets—With over half the budget protected, achieving $2 trillion in cuts would require dramatic reductions in areas such as cabinet agencies, veterans’ benefits, and Medicaid. But even obvious targets for cuts in these areas wouldn’t produce large savings:
- Shuttering the Department of Education—which conservatives frequently cite for closure—would achieve just 5% of DOGE’s $2 trillion goal.
- Implementing systems to prevent $100 billion in annual Medicaid and Medicare fraud would cost nearly as much as it saves.
Implementation Hurdles
There are also structural challenges to DOGE’s spending reduction goals:
- Economic Impact
- Recession risk. Government spending is a major component of the economy. Sharp cuts could trigger an economic downturn by eroding consumer confidence and spending.
- Job market losses. The proposed reductions would eliminate 2.2 million positions, including 219,000 in swing states.
- Operational Challenges
- Workforce constraints. Federal employment is already at historic lows (0.6% of the total US population in 2023, versus 2.5% in 1945), with most employees working in key services.
- Geographic concerns. 85% of federal workers operate outside Washington, DC, with over 60% serving in defense and veterans affairs—areas Trump has historically protected. There’s political risk in cutting these employees, many of whom live in Republican-leaning states, and their removal could create operational gaps.
- Political Resistance
- Constituency opposition. Every program facing cuts has a base of supporters who have historically outmaneuvered prospective budget-cutters.
- Intra-party division. Even modest cuts face pushback within the Republican party, which was unable to pass a comparatively small $130 billion reduction in discretionary spending when it controlled the House in 2022.
Potential Workarounds
Facing these obstacles, President-elect Trump is exploring ways to bypass normal procedures for reducing the federal workforce, including:
- Reinstating his Schedule F executive order, which would allow the administration to remove career federal employees’ job protections so they could be fired like political appointees.
- Refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for federal programs. This would mean defying a 1974 law that requires congressional approval before presidents can withhold appropriated funds. Some Trump allies argue this law is unconstitutional and believe he would prevail in a court challenge.
However, this approach faces practical constraints since most civilian employees work in defense, veterans affairs, and homeland security—areas the former president protected in his last term.
Looking Ahead
Experts say that Ramaswamy and Elon Musk’s $2 trillion target faces long-term challenges as more Americans enter retirement, increasing mandatory spending on Social Security and Medicare—programs Trump has pledged not to cut. But while the commission might not fully achieve its stated fiscal goals, it could have a lasting political impact: By conducting its work through social media and framing government spending as wasteful, the department could shift budget debates and normalize deeper cuts to federal programs.
Questions for Reflection & Discussion
- How might the proposed $2 trillion budget cut affect everyday Americans, particularly those who rely on federal services or employment?
- Based on Musk’s previous efficiency strategies at Twitter and other companies, do you think his approach would translate effectively to government operations? Why or why not?
- The article mentions potential workarounds such as Schedule F and bypassing Congress for spending decisions. What are the democratic implications of these strategies?
- Given that 56% of the federal budget is considered protected spending (Medicare, Social Security, defense, and debt interest), is setting a $2 trillion reduction target realistic or potentially misleading to the public?
- How might relocating federal agencies away from Washington, DC, as Ramaswamy suggests, impact government operations and accountability? What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a move?
Want to fast-track your learning? With Shortform, you’ll gain insights you won't find anywhere else .
Here's what you’ll get when you sign up for Shortform :
- Complicated ideas explained in simple and concise ways
- Smart analysis that connects what you’re reading to other key concepts
- Writing with zero fluff because we know how important your time is
