Vivek Ramaswamy

Well, I'm, of course, biased because Elon and I had discussed that for the better part of the last year and a half. So I think it's a great idea. It's something that's very consistent with the core premise of my presidential candidacy. I got to know him as I was running for U.S. president in a couple of events that he came to, and then we built a friendship after that.

So obviously, I think it's a great idea. Who do you think is more hardcore on the cutting, you or Elon? Well, I think Elon is pretty hardcore. I said 75%. of the federal bureaucrats. And while I was running for president, he said, you need to put at least 75%. So I agree with him. I think it'd be a fun competition to see who ends up more hardcore.

So obviously, I think it's a great idea. Who do you think is more hardcore on the cutting, you or Elon? Well, I think Elon is pretty hardcore. I said 75%. of the federal bureaucrats. And while I was running for president, he said, you need to put at least 75%. So I agree with him. I think it'd be a fun competition to see who ends up more hardcore.

So obviously, I think it's a great idea. Who do you think is more hardcore on the cutting, you or Elon? Well, I think Elon is pretty hardcore. I said 75%. of the federal bureaucrats. And while I was running for president, he said, you need to put at least 75%. So I agree with him. I think it'd be a fun competition to see who ends up more hardcore.

I don't think there's someone out there who's going to be more hardcore than here I would be. And the reason is, I think we share in common A willingness to take the risk and see what happens. I mean, the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west. That much I guarantee you. Is there going to be some broken glass and some damage? Yes, there is. There's no way around that.

I don't think there's someone out there who's going to be more hardcore than here I would be. And the reason is, I think we share in common A willingness to take the risk and see what happens. I mean, the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west. That much I guarantee you. Is there going to be some broken glass and some damage? Yes, there is. There's no way around that.

I don't think there's someone out there who's going to be more hardcore than here I would be. And the reason is, I think we share in common A willingness to take the risk and see what happens. I mean, the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west. That much I guarantee you. Is there going to be some broken glass and some damage? Yes, there is. There's no way around that.

But once you're willing to take that risk, then it doesn't become so scary anymore. And here's the thing, Lex. It's easy to say this. Let's talk about where the rubber hits the road here. Even in second Trump term, this would be the discussion. President Trump and I have had this conversation, but I think we would continue to have this conversation is,

But once you're willing to take that risk, then it doesn't become so scary anymore. And here's the thing, Lex. It's easy to say this. Let's talk about where the rubber hits the road here. Even in second Trump term, this would be the discussion. President Trump and I have had this conversation, but I think we would continue to have this conversation is,

But once you're willing to take that risk, then it doesn't become so scary anymore. And here's the thing, Lex. It's easy to say this. Let's talk about where the rubber hits the road here. Even in second Trump term, this would be the discussion. President Trump and I have had this conversation, but I think we would continue to have this conversation is,

where does it rank on our prioritization list? Because there's always going to be a trade-off. If you have a different policy objective that you want to achieve, a good policy objective, whatever that is, right? You could talk about immigration policy. You could talk about economic policy. There are other policy objectives. You're going to trade off a little bit in the short run

where does it rank on our prioritization list? Because there's always going to be a trade-off. If you have a different policy objective that you want to achieve, a good policy objective, whatever that is, right? You could talk about immigration policy. You could talk about economic policy. There are other policy objectives. You're going to trade off a little bit in the short run

where does it rank on our prioritization list? Because there's always going to be a trade-off. If you have a different policy objective that you want to achieve, a good policy objective, whatever that is, right? You could talk about immigration policy. You could talk about economic policy. There are other policy objectives. You're going to trade off a little bit in the short run

effectiveness of your ability to carry out that policy goal, if you're also committed to actually thinning out the federal government by 75%, because there's just going to be some clunkiness, right? And there's just going to be frictional costs for that level of cut. So the question is, where does that rank on your prioritization list?

effectiveness of your ability to carry out that policy goal, if you're also committed to actually thinning out the federal government by 75%, because there's just going to be some clunkiness, right? And there's just going to be frictional costs for that level of cut. So the question is, where does that rank on your prioritization list?

effectiveness of your ability to carry out that policy goal, if you're also committed to actually thinning out the federal government by 75%, because there's just going to be some clunkiness, right? And there's just going to be frictional costs for that level of cut. So the question is, where does that rank on your prioritization list?

To pull that off, to pull off a 75% reduction in the size and scale of the federal government, the regulatory state, and the headcount, I think that only happens if that's your top priority.

To pull that off, to pull off a 75% reduction in the size and scale of the federal government, the regulatory state, and the headcount, I think that only happens if that's your top priority.

To pull that off, to pull off a 75% reduction in the size and scale of the federal government, the regulatory state, and the headcount, I think that only happens if that's your top priority.

You can do it at a smaller scale, but at that scale, it only happens if that's your top priority, because then as president, you're in a position to say, I know in the super short run that might even make it a little bit harder for me to do this other thing that I want to do and use the regulatory state to do it. But I'm going to pass on that. I'm going to pass that up.