Simon Rabinovitch

I suppose one way that you might see it is that it's not that Vogt sees himself specifically as a handmaiden of whatever happens to be the Trumpian vision of government, but rather he sees Trump and Trump's allies as basically being battering rams to destroy the status quo in government, especially the status quo in the bureaucracy, and to push through, hopefully, many of his beliefs.

He really wants the president to have more power. He really wants much in the government to bend to the executive. And he wants to make changes that would do that. And he appears to be making changes that would do that. But what happens when the next time a Democrat is elected president? Like, has he thought through the implications of what he wants to do here?

He really wants the president to have more power. He really wants much in the government to bend to the executive. And he wants to make changes that would do that. And he appears to be making changes that would do that. But what happens when the next time a Democrat is elected president? Like, has he thought through the implications of what he wants to do here?

He really wants the president to have more power. He really wants much in the government to bend to the executive. And he wants to make changes that would do that. And he appears to be making changes that would do that. But what happens when the next time a Democrat is elected president? Like, has he thought through the implications of what he wants to do here?

no doubt the implication would be that you'd begin to have this whipsawing between potentially an extreme Republican agenda followed by something that would be much more appealing towards Democratic voters. Having said that, I think that he believes that his role is not just to do something that's a corrective for the last four years, but to do something that's a corrective for the last century.

no doubt the implication would be that you'd begin to have this whipsawing between potentially an extreme Republican agenda followed by something that would be much more appealing towards Democratic voters. Having said that, I think that he believes that his role is not just to do something that's a corrective for the last four years, but to do something that's a corrective for the last century.

no doubt the implication would be that you'd begin to have this whipsawing between potentially an extreme Republican agenda followed by something that would be much more appealing towards Democratic voters. Having said that, I think that he believes that his role is not just to do something that's a corrective for the last four years, but to do something that's a corrective for the last century.

So I think, you know, he's aware that a Democrat could begin to unwind some of his agenda, but he wants to demolish the civil service that's been built up, that's been strengthened and expanded, you know, going back to the time of Teddy Roosevelt, you know, well before even FDR.

So I think, you know, he's aware that a Democrat could begin to unwind some of his agenda, but he wants to demolish the civil service that's been built up, that's been strengthened and expanded, you know, going back to the time of Teddy Roosevelt, you know, well before even FDR.

So I think, you know, he's aware that a Democrat could begin to unwind some of his agenda, but he wants to demolish the civil service that's been built up, that's been strengthened and expanded, you know, going back to the time of Teddy Roosevelt, you know, well before even FDR.

So, you know, if he's able to dramatically shrink the government, to dramatically assert the president's power to not spend all the money that's been appropriated, I think his belief would be that even if you have a democratic president, they would not be able to just completely reverse everything that he's done.

So, you know, if he's able to dramatically shrink the government, to dramatically assert the president's power to not spend all the money that's been appropriated, I think his belief would be that even if you have a democratic president, they would not be able to just completely reverse everything that he's done.

So, you know, if he's able to dramatically shrink the government, to dramatically assert the president's power to not spend all the money that's been appropriated, I think his belief would be that even if you have a democratic president, they would not be able to just completely reverse everything that he's done.

So, I mean, yes, that's a risk to his agenda, but still, I think, you know, this is something that he thinks is required.

So, I mean, yes, that's a risk to his agenda, but still, I think, you know, this is something that he thinks is required.

So, I mean, yes, that's a risk to his agenda, but still, I think, you know, this is something that he thinks is required.

Simon Rabinovich is the U.S. economics editor for leading magazine The Economist. Miles Bryan produced today's show and Amina El-Sadi edited. Andrea Christen's daughter engineered. Laura Bullard is our fact checker. And I'm Noelle King. It's Today Explained.

Simon Rabinovich is the U.S. economics editor for leading magazine The Economist. Miles Bryan produced today's show and Amina El-Sadi edited. Andrea Christen's daughter engineered. Laura Bullard is our fact checker. And I'm Noelle King. It's Today Explained.

Simon Rabinovich is the U.S. economics editor for leading magazine The Economist. Miles Bryan produced today's show and Amina El-Sadi edited. Andrea Christen's daughter engineered. Laura Bullard is our fact checker. And I'm Noelle King. It's Today Explained.