And then there’s the most visible of Trump’s advisors. This man has been called “the real power” or “co-president,” Elon Musk. The richest man in the world, he’s always the promoter and savvy investor, but his self-interest and radical politics have sometimes done more damage than good. His investments in Tesla led to the most successful electric car company until car buyers revolted because of Musk’s politics. His spaceflight and satellite companies have been huge successes, but SpaceX has been rash in its safety record, and Starlink has been used for Musk’s personal agenda.
Now, his “Department of Government Efficiency” promises to eliminate what he sees as runaway bureaucracy. “I hate bureaucracy; it’s like a cancer that grows exponentially,” he once declared.
But lately, the realities of Musk’s “chainsaw” approach have begun to eclipse the hype. Critics argue that many of his so-called budget cuts and staff reductions are more a matter of flash than fact, pointing out how numerous firings have been hastily reversed after important functions stalled. Nowhere has this been more visible than in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), where Musk-backed layoffs went too far, leaving critical air traffic control and safety positions understaffed. Some lawmakers have even linked the recent uptick in mid-air incidents and near misses to the FAA’s diminished oversight capacity, calling Musk’s slash-and-burn tactics “reckless” and “dangerously short-sighted.”
While his admirers insist that government bloat needs a radical trim, Musk’s detractors see a pattern of shooting first and sorting out the consequences later. They worry that his tendency to move at breakneck speed—so effective in the tech world—could undermine vital public services if replicated across the federal bureaucracy. Questions also swirl about whether a private-sector mindset, which often prizes efficiency above all else, can coexist with a government designed to protect the public interest, even when that requires a slower, more deliberate approach.
All of these figures share an audacious goal: to redefine America’s role at home and abroad by slashing long-standing programs and upending the status quo. The House’s narrow approval of a budget slashing up to $2 trillion in federal spending—much of it from Medicaid—and extending $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, mostly to the very rich, underscores just how sweeping these ambitions are, even as critics warn the nation’s debt could balloon to 125% of GDP. But what’s undeniable is that none of these players has ever been shy about courting controversy or expanding executive power. With fresh momentum behind them, they’re about to demonstrate just how far they can go—and how much of Washington they can remake in the process. After all, if you ask them, the real question isn’t whether the President’s authority should be challenged; it’s whether anyone has the resolve—or the power—to stop them.