Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) chief Elon Musk recently said the following:
“I think we do need to delete entire agencies as opposed to [leaving] part of them behind … If you leave part of them behind … It’s kind of like leaving a weed. If you don’t remove the roots of the weed, then [it’s] easy for the weed to grow back .… But if you remove the roots of the weed, it doesn’t stop weeds from ever growing back, but it makes it harder. We have to really delete entire agencies—many of them.”
Regardless of one’s opinion of Musk or Doge, he’s right. In time, agencies and programs will grow back. Thus, any reduction in the federal government’s size and scope will be fleeting.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Education (DOE), and the US Postal Service are federal entities that the Trump administration may target for abolition or privatization. The administration is trying to shutter the US Agency for International Development (USAID) unilaterally, but abolishing USAID and other agencies will require congressional action.
Getting Congress to abolish federal agencies is going to be a tall order. The budget resolutions the Republican-led House and Senate put forth would increase unsustainable federal debt levels, which is telling. However, they do provide for varying degrees of spending cuts.
Deficit hawks would be correct to say that abolishing every penny of FEMA, Education, and USAID spending wouldn’t substantially reduce federal spending—especially if spending increases occur elsewhere. However, the benefit of terminating agencies extends well beyond the price tag and would represent a welcome downsizing of the federal government’s scope.
Unfortunately, congressional Republicans are already pushing back on trimming any weeds, let alone pulling them out of the ground. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R‑PA) says there will be no cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, which would jeopardize Democratic support for continuing the GOP’s flow of subsidies to farmers. And swing-district Republicans who are prioritizing keeping their job over supporting what needs to be done are saying no.
Even congressional Republicans who support abolishing agencies propose pulling weeds and planting them elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy. For example, there’s growing Republican support for abolishing the Department of Education. But they’re not actually proposing to get rid of the DOE’s programs; rather, the programs would be moved to other federal departments. That may be the most politically feasible option and would have its benefits, but it wouldn’t eliminate the federal government’s involvement in what is properly a state and local matter.
Musk presumably knows Congress remains unserious about downsizing the federal government. DOGE’s attempts to work solely within the executive branch to eliminate USAID points to this. Contrary to what some in the Trump administration think, serious cutting requires Congress to get involved. Therefore, it would be useful for DOGE to focus more energy on prodding Congress to find the gumption to do its part.