Trump Appoints Musk to Lead “Department of Government Efficiency” — A True Reform or a Return to Political Patronage?

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and the largest financial backer of Trump’s 2024 campaign, is set to join the Trump cabinet. On November 13 at 8:46 AM (Taipei time), Trump announced on his social media platform Truth Social that Musk, along with his ally, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, will head the newly established “Department of Government Efficiency.” According to Trump, they will be tasked with dismantling bureaucratic red tape, cutting excessive regulations, trimming unnecessary spending, and restructuring federal agencies.

Trump likened this initiative to a modern-day “Manhattan Project,” referring to the World War II atomic bomb program, stating that the new department would collaborate with the White House and the Office of Management & Budget to drive large-scale structural reforms and create a novel model of efficient governance. Trump concluded by emphasizing that their work will be completed by July 4, 2026, aiming for a leaner, more efficient government with less bureaucracy.

What is Bureaucracy?

In his statement, Trump frequently referenced the term “bureaucracy,” so let’s begin there. According to German sociologist Max Weber’s theory, bureaucracy is an ideal form of organization, emphasizing professional specialization, hierarchical structuring, procedural consistency, impersonal management, and career-based administration. Weber argued that this structure enhances administrative efficiency and is essential in modern society. Thus, “bureaucracy” often describes a specific type of organizational structure and management style, originally without a positive or negative connotation.

However, over time, “bureaucracy” has come to evoke negative associations in public discourse, often linked with inefficiency, red tape, and corruption. This shift reflects growing public dissatisfaction with bureaucratic systems that fail to meet their intended goals.

Political Patronage in U.S. History: A Source of Federal Corruption

Discussing the history of America’s public administration requires examining the “spoils system,” a political patronage model that prevailed in the early days of the United States. This system encouraged deep-rooted corruption by using government positions as rewards for political supporters, not as roles assigned on merit. This practice undermined both government efficiency and impartiality, spawning widespread corruption and a disorderly administrative environment.

President Andrew Jackson’s approach was distinctly different from the elite-driven politics of his predecessors. As the nation’s seventh president, Jackson expanded executive power, opposed the national bank, and implemented the spoils system to curb interest groups’ control over government jobs, aiming to represent small business owners and emerging social classes. His administration promoted populism and broadened democratic access.

Under Jackson’s spoils system, over 70 journalists and editors were given government jobs, strengthening ties with the press and reflecting the media’s dependence on partisan politics. This entanglement was unprecedented, revealing how media and politics became deeply intertwined.

Over time, however, this system proved counterproductive, leading to delays in government response to fiscal issues due to divided control of the legislative branches. Patronage also fragmented policy across regions, intensifying inconsistencies and making national policies harder to implement effectively.

The spoils system even compromised governmental fairness, notably through practices like gerrymandering, where manipulating district boundaries distorts democratic outcomes to favor political elites over the broader populace. Additionally, it led to inequitable resource allocation, such as states declining federal grants to preserve political independence, which often sacrificed public welfare.

A concrete example of such corruption occurred during the Grant administration, a period infamous for rampant patronage and corruption, often considered one of the most corrupt eras in American history. During Grant’s tenure, more than 40 family members of officials were appointed to government positions. In 1872, the Union Pacific Railroad and its construction company, Credit Mobilier, overcharged the government for railroad construction costs. Several members of Congress, including Grant’s Vice President, Schuyler Colfax, were accused of accepting bribes to overlook these fraudulent activities. In 1875, a tax fraud scheme emerged, involving distillers and government officials colluding to defraud federal tax revenue. Initially, Grant’s Treasury Secretary, Benjamin Bristow, spearheaded the investigation into the fraud. However, after Grant’s personal secretary, Orville Babcock, became implicated, Grant intervened personally. He even testified in Babcock’s defense during the trial, sparking widespread controversy.

This disorder persisted until 1883, when the U.S. Congress passed a landmark piece of legislation — the Pendleton Act — marking a significant milestone in the reform of the American civil service system. The act’s key provisions established three foundational principles for federal personnel management: competitive examinations, tenure in office, and political neutrality. These principles aimed to dismantle the longstanding patronage system and create a more equitable and efficient civil service framework. The Pendleton Act also established the Civil Service Commission, with a mandate that no more than two members could come from the same political party. This structure was intended to ensure that the commission remained politically neutral and minimized influence from any single party.

Biden Expands Bureaucracy, While Trump Plans to Start by Abolishing the Department of Education

In 2023, the Biden administration announced plans to expand numerous federal agencies, aiming to add 82,000 federal employees in the 2024 fiscal year — a 3.6% increase that would bring the federal civilian workforce to its highest level since World War II. Treasury, particularly the IRS, is expected to see a significant boost, with 13,000 new hires. The National Park Service plans to add around 1,400 employees, marking a 7% increase. The Department of Labor projects a 7% staff increase in 2023, with certain divisions expanding further. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to add 1,900 full-time positions — a 16% increase from 2022. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is recruiting to address specific needs, including adding 350 border patrol agents and bolstering other sections like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and FEMA.

Given the context of America’s high national debt and economic downturn, it’s unsurprising that Trump would quickly seek to downsize government with two business leaders at the helm. His first target may well be the Department of Education, aligning with the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Presidential Transition Project, a 2022 proposal. This project argues that federal involvement in education has not significantly improved student outcomes despite substantial funding. Citing decades of stagnating national reading and math scores, the plan suggests that a locally managed educational system could better address student and family needs. The Department of Education, critics argue, has become overly bureaucratic, burdening state and local educational systems with extensive regulations that drain resources from the classroom.

A core goal of the proposal is to transfer decision-making power over educational policy and funding to state and local governments, reasoning that this shift would reduce costs associated with federal compliance, allowing funds to be allocated more flexibly to meet local educational needs. The plan also recommends converting federal education funding into less restrictive block grants to decrease federal influence and empower states. It emphasizes supporting parental choice, advocating for an education system shaped by family preferences rather than centralized policy. The dissolution of the Department of Education would allow families greater freedom in choosing educational options, including private and alternative schools.

Unlike Taiwan’s centralized education system, the United States operates under a decentralized governance model with federal, state, and local layers. The federal Department of Education’s authority is limited; it does not directly manage day-to-day educational operations at any level. Instead, state Departments of Education and state Boards of Education, which operate independently within each state, hold primary responsibility for educational success, policymaking, and oversight of local school districts.

The federal Department of Education oversees and coordinates interstate educational matters, including policy advocacy, funding allocation, research, and data collection. Beginning with President George H.W. Bush’s national education reform initiatives, subsequent presidents like Clinton, with the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, and George W. Bush, with the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, have pushed for national educational reform. These efforts sought to drive improvements in student performance nationwide. Trump’s potential second term could bring an end to such federal involvement.

The Steps Required to Establish the “Department of Government Efficiency”

Reforming public institutions differs fundamentally from business restructuring, as it requires more than an executive order. Establishing a new federal department in the U.S. requires Congressional approval, as the Constitution grants Congress the power to create federal agencies. Article I of the Constitution delegates legislative authority to Congress, including the creation of departments and their functions. While the president may reorganize or eliminate certain appointed roles, creating a new federal agency requires legislative support.

Typically, creating a “Department of Government Efficiency” would involve these steps:

1. Drafting Legislation: The president or a member of Congress drafts a bill proposing the new department.
2. Congressional Approval: The proposal must pass through both the House and Senate, a process that includes committee reviews, potential amendments, and votes.
3. Presidential Signature: If both chambers pass the bill, the president signs it into law.
4. Implementation Plan: Once the law takes effect, a detailed implementation plan must outline the new department’s mission, structure, staffing, and budget needs.
5. Funding Allocation: Congress must approve funding, as federal agencies cannot operate without an approved budget.

Even with a Republican majority, quickly passing the required legislation and securing funding for a new department could prove time-consuming. Trump’s fully Republican-controlled administration may last only two years, raising questions about whether such an extensive restructuring can be achieved within this timeframe.

Are Key Donors Becoming Political Appointees?

Musk and Ramaswamy’s entry into Trump’s potential second-term cabinet may fuel concerns of a return to early American political patronage. While there is no record of Ramaswamy contributing financially to Trump or Republican congressional candidates, Musk’s contributions alone exceed $132 million. Musk’s America PAC, a super PAC he founded, contributed $118.6 million over the year, including $43.6 million in October alone. Musk also donated $10 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, which supports Republican Senate candidates, and $2.3 million to Sentinel Action Fund.

Musk’s America PAC has spent approximately $105 million to support Trump’s campaign as of October 16, 2024, focusing on boosting Trump’s voter turnout in key swing states and aiding Republican candidates in battleground districts.

In addition to financial backing, Musk has leveraged his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), to amplify pro-Trump messages, reactivating Trump’s account and promoting content aligned with his views. This platform has become an influential tool for Trump’s campaign.

Musk’s appointment as head of government restructuring may appear to reward his political contributions, sparking debates about the influence of high-profile donors in the executive branch.