THE stunning results of the USA elections surprised both Democrats and Republicans alike. Trump’s unprecedented victory was accompanied by Republican wins in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Before the 2024 elections, Democrats controlled the Senate with 51 seats to Republicans’ 49, while Republicans held a narrow majority in the House with 220 seats to Democrats’ 212. After the elections, Republicans gained control of the Senate with 53 seats and in the House, they retained their majority with 220 seats to Democrats’ 213, with 2 races undecided. This outcome resulted in unified Republican control of both Chambers of Congress. This has emboldened President-elect Donald J. Trump to undertake one of the boldest policy and administrative decisions in U.S. history, which could be a potential game changer. Mr. Trump has established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to streamline federal operations by identifying wasteful spending, reducing regulatory burdens and restructuring or potentially abolishing certain agencies to enhance government efficiency.
He is poised to substantially reduce the size of the U.S. civilian and military bureaucracy, which, according to the strategic reform team led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has grown excessively large. They argue that the bureaucracy has become a de facto “fourth branch” of government, assuming overriding control over decision-making processes and diminishing the power of the democratically elected political leadership. The rationale behind this initiative is that the federal bureaucracy has grown disproportionately large, with hefty perks and benefits, while many departments, despite their significant size and employment levels, are either underperforming or have lost sight of their original purpose. This has led to an unsustainable diversion of government funds to sustain a bloated bureaucracy rather than focusing on essential public services.
The composition of the team leading this significant reform effort is noteworthy. Both Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy come from private-sector backgrounds and have no prior experience in government bureaucracy. However, as highly successful corporate entrepreneurs, they bring a proven track record of building organizations from scratch and transforming them into success stories. For instance, Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and prominent Republican from Cincinnati, Ohio, is the son of Indian immigrants and a Harvard biology graduate with a Yale Law degree. Founder of Roivant Sciences, he gained prominence for his critique of “woke” corporate culture in his 2021 book Woke, Inc. Appointed by Trump to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Ramaswamy envisions reducing the federal workforce by 75%, abolishing redundant agencies and enforcing eight-year term limits for unelected federal employees to curb entrenched power. He advocates rescinding Executive Order 11246 for a merit-based system and utilizing Schedule F to remove “deep-state” actors, aiming to cut costs, streamline operations and foster a responsive, meritocratic government.
Like Vivek, Elon Musk, a visionary entrepreneur from Pretoria, South Africa, is renowned for founding transformative companies like SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink and The Boring Company, revolutionizing industries from space exploration to infrastructure. A University of Pennsylvania graduate in physics and economics, Musk has consistently advocated for reducing federal bureaucracy. In a November 2024 interview, he proposed cutting federal agencies from 428 to 99—a 77% reduction—targeting entities like the Department of Education, FBI, ATF, IRS, CDC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Criticizing overlapping responsibilities and entrenched “deep-state” elements, Musk likens excessive regulation to having more referees than players, emphasizing the need for a streamlined, innovation-driven government.
According to the concept, reducing federal bureaucracy by 70% to 77% can promote self-governance, efficiency and potential tax reductions. By decentralizing power to state and local governments, it would foster greater accountability and responsiveness while empowering communities to address their unique needs. Moreover, streamlining operations eliminates redundancies will enhance decision-making agility and will integrate modern technologies to reduce costs. Savings from reduced expenditures can lower taxes, address national debt and boost public investment in critical areas like infrastructure and social welfare. This leaner structure would encourage economic growth, reduce dependence on centralized systems and builds trust in a fiscally responsible government, benefiting both individuals and the private sector.
In a hypothetical scenario, if the civil and military bureaucracy is reduced by 77%, it would generate savings of approximately $815.24 billion and economic growth would add another $260 billion, the total additional funds available would be $1,075.24 billion annually. If this amount is used to reduce taxes for the common people, it could result in a tax reduction of approximately $3,239 per person annually, significantly easing the financial burden on households across the United States, besides the higher growth rate would amplify the benefits of deregulation and tax cuts, driving economic dynamism, fostering business expansion and enhancing government revenue through increased overall economic activity. Though the concept and ideal looks great on paper and while reducing bureaucracy would promise cost savings, improved efficiency and enhanced self-governance, its practical implementation most likely would face significant challenges.
Political resistance from entrenched interests, legislative hurdles and opposition from the bureaucracy itself could impede progress. Downsizing risks substantial job losses, economic disruption and potential service gaps in critical public functions, including national security. Administrative complexities, such as restructuring workflows and maintaining morale among remaining employees, add further difficulties. The anticipated economic growth from deregulation and tax reductions may not materialize quickly and regional economies dependent on federal jobs could suffer. Legal and ethical concerns, including labor lawsuits and equity issues, also pose significant risks.
To succeed, such reforms would require a phased, strategic approach, stakeholder engagement and meticulous planning to avoid unintended consequences and ensure sustainable outcomes.
—The writer is a former Press Secretary to the President.
