English
DENVER (AP) — For years, conservatives in Congress have championed deep government cuts, only to hesitate when faced with potential voter backlash. Now, the Trump administration is taking an unprecedented approach, bypassing lawmakers with the creation of the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire Elon Musk. This effort, spearheaded by an unelected businessman under a termed-out president, has raised alarms—even among fiscal conservatives—about the lack of congressional oversight in determining government spending.
“Some in the Trump administration became frustrated with Congress’s reluctance to cut spending, so they decided to go around them,” said Jessica Reidl of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “The result is that no elected official who answers to voters is making these decisions.”
However, that dynamic may be shifting.
Amid mounting legal challenges over the legality of Musk’s sweeping layoffs, Trump told his Cabinet on Thursday that Musk’s role would be limited to making recommendations rather than implementing cuts unilaterally. Additionally, Republican senators have made it clear that Musk must seek congressional approval for any reductions—through a legislative process known as rescission, which allows Congress to vote on proposed cuts without the threat of a filibuster.
When informed of this requirement, Musk reportedly admitted he had never heard of rescission before. That admission was striking, considering it is the only legal mechanism through which the executive branch can refuse to spend money allocated by Congress.
“To make these cuts real, they need to go through Congress in the form of a rescission package,” said Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a longtime advocate for reducing government spending.
Of course, giving Congress the final say introduces political complications. Individual lawmakers, driven by home-state interests, could resist cuts to programs that benefit their constituents. While some view this as an obstacle, others argue that it is a necessary safeguard in a democratic system.
“There’s always a temptation to insulate decisions from politics,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “But in a democracy, that’s a mistake. The process is messy, but it ensures accountability.”
Even among fiscal conservatives who have long pushed for spending reductions, there is an acknowledgment that past failures to cut government stem from public opposition.
“If Congress hasn’t passed these cuts, it’s because the American people don’t want them enough,” Reidl said. “If I want lower spending levels, it’s my job to persuade the public—not to bypass them.”
Trump and his supporters argue that they already secured public support by winning the 2024 election with a mandate to reshape Washington. “The people elected me to do the job, and I’m doing it,” Trump declared during his recent address to Congress.
For decades, conservatives have promoted a more corporate-style approach to governing, and Musk’s leadership of DOGE embodies that vision. His aggressive cost-cutting measures mirror the sweeping layoffs he implemented at Twitter, down to the “Fork in the Road” emails offering buyouts.
However, critics argue that DOGE’s approach goes beyond simply shrinking government. Don Moynihan, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, warned that the initiative is eroding congressional authority.
“This isn’t just about spending cuts—it’s a backdoor attempt to shut down agencies created by Congress,” Moynihan said. “It represents an unprecedented level of disruption.”
Despite the controversy, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist praised the initiative, arguing that it could demonstrate to Congress that drastic spending cuts are politically viable.
“If we do something for three years, Congress will make it law,” Norquist predicted. “They’ll see that voters won’t panic, and they’ll put their names on it.”
Still, history suggests that sweeping government cuts are easier promised than enacted. Even under Republican leadership, spending has continued to grow, from Ronald Reagan’s presidency to Trump’s first term.
Now, however, Trump faces no electoral consequences. Unlike previous presidents who tempered their actions to preserve future political prospects, Trump has openly expressed disdain for the federal bureaucracy, which he blames for undermining his first term.
“I don’t think any previous president has had the same level of animosity toward the federal government as this one,” Holtz-Eakin observed.
In addition to DOGE, Trump has launched a parallel cost-cutting effort through traditional channels, directing his Office of Management and Budget to prepare for mass layoffs. Experts suggest that this official route is more likely to produce lasting change.
Meanwhile, early signs of voter dissatisfaction are emerging. Holtz-Eakin noted that while Trump himself may not be on the ballot again, history shows that unpopular policies often translate into heavy midterm losses for the president’s party.
“You can’t escape the voters forever,” he said.
