David Marchese

So it seems to me, honestly, like they are still figuring this out themselves. But to the degree that we know their plan, they spelled that out in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last month. And they laid out a few different ways that they say they would go about sort of beginning to identify and then make the right cuts.

And this sort of theme underlying it all was that government is run by what they call unelected bureaucrats, meaning federal workers. They're going to find a way to take power back from those folks and return it to the people.

And this sort of theme underlying it all was that government is run by what they call unelected bureaucrats, meaning federal workers. They're going to find a way to take power back from those folks and return it to the people.

Right. We're in a situation where a couple of very rich people are sort of putting themselves in the place of identifying what the people want. Right. You know, but they are working for a president who just won. So, you know, maybe they have a little more claim to it now than they would have a few months ago.

Right. We're in a situation where a couple of very rich people are sort of putting themselves in the place of identifying what the people want. Right. You know, but they are working for a president who just won. So, you know, maybe they have a little more claim to it now than they would have a few months ago.

Well, there's a few different ways they're going about this, but the most important thing I think we need to start with is the idea that they want to cut regulations first, federal rules first, and that once you cut rules, then you can start to cut people and spending. And the way that they're going to start by cutting rules is using a Supreme Court decision called Loper-Bright.

Well, there's a few different ways they're going about this, but the most important thing I think we need to start with is the idea that they want to cut regulations first, federal rules first, and that once you cut rules, then you can start to cut people and spending. And the way that they're going to start by cutting rules is using a Supreme Court decision called Loper-Bright.

It basically strikes down something called Chevron deference. It We're deep in the legal weeds here, but this is important. Okay. So the reason it's called Chevron is it's named after a case in which Chevron was a party back in the 80s.

It basically strikes down something called Chevron deference. It We're deep in the legal weeds here, but this is important. Okay. So the reason it's called Chevron is it's named after a case in which Chevron was a party back in the 80s.

And the idea that the Supreme Court laid out in the 80s was that if a federal agency makes a rule, it takes an idea that Congress laid out and then sort of makes it more specific, promulgates a rule for people to abide by. if somebody challenges that rule and says, hey, this rule is wrong or it doesn't comport with what Congress wanted, that the court should defer to the judgment of the agency.

And the idea that the Supreme Court laid out in the 80s was that if a federal agency makes a rule, it takes an idea that Congress laid out and then sort of makes it more specific, promulgates a rule for people to abide by. if somebody challenges that rule and says, hey, this rule is wrong or it doesn't comport with what Congress wanted, that the court should defer to the judgment of the agency.

The idea being that the agency has experts that they may know better than the courts, that they should defer to the judgment of the agency unless it's really egregious.

The idea being that the agency has experts that they may know better than the courts, that they should defer to the judgment of the agency unless it's really egregious.

They did. So the Supreme Court got rid of that. And what they said instead was, no, courts should just be able to use their own judgment.

They did. So the Supreme Court got rid of that. And what they said instead was, no, courts should just be able to use their own judgment.

The agencies don't deserve any sort of special deference that if somebody challenges a rule in court, that the court should be able to use their own judgment about whether that rule was reasonable or not without going from a starting point that the agency might be right. So the way that Musk and Ramaswamy want to use this is to say, OK, well, now we're going to go back into federal government.

The agencies don't deserve any sort of special deference that if somebody challenges a rule in court, that the court should be able to use their own judgment about whether that rule was reasonable or not without going from a starting point that the agency might be right. So the way that Musk and Ramaswamy want to use this is to say, OK, well, now we're going to go back into federal government.

And with the help of the folks who work inside government, we're going to identify a whole bunch of rules that we believe are wrong. Now that we think there's more freedom to challenge federal rules, we're going to find all kinds of federal rules we think are overreaching or don't follow the original intent of Congress or unconstitutional.

And with the help of the folks who work inside government, we're going to identify a whole bunch of rules that we believe are wrong. Now that we think there's more freedom to challenge federal rules, we're going to find all kinds of federal rules we think are overreaching or don't follow the original intent of Congress or unconstitutional.

And we're just going to start identifying those and tell President Trump, hey, stop enforcing these rules. Don't enforce them. And we'll start the formal process to take them off the books. And that once you stop enforcing rules and start taking those rules off the books, their idea is, well, you won't need as many federal workers to enforce those rules because there's less rules to enforce.