Our country is built on the basic idea that the people we elect to run the government are the ones we edict. But that's not the case in America today. Most of the provisions of the law are not laws enacted by Congress, but "rules and regulations" enacted by unelected bureaucrats... there are tens of thousands of rules and regulation every year. Most of the government's law enforcement decisions and discretionary spending are made not by the elected president or even his politically appointed officials, but by the millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants in government agencies who believe they will not be fired because of the protections of the civil service.
This approach is anti-democratic and runs counter to the vision of the Founding Fathers. It imposes significant direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to address this. On November 5, voters decisively elected Trump and authorized him to make sweeping changes that they (taxpayers) deserve.
President Trump asked the two of us to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency.Of Government Efficiency, DOGE- Also known as the Office of Government Efficiency) to reduce the size of the federal government. The entrenched, ballooning bureaucracy poses an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have tolerated it for a long time. That's why we're taking a different approach. We're entrepreneurs, not politicians. We are outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government committees or advisory committees, we don't just write reports or cut ribbons. We're going to cut costs.
We are assisting the Trump transition team in identifying and hiring a lean team of small government reform fighters, including some of the nation's brightest technical and legal talent. The team will work closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget in the new administration. The two of us will advise the Office of Government Efficiency at every step to implement three broad categories of reform: deregulation, administrative reduction, and cost savings. We will place particular emphasis on promoting reform through executive action based on existing legislation rather than through the enactment of new laws. The polar star of our reform will be the Constitution of the United States, focusing on two important Supreme Court decisions during his tenure.
In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies cannot enforce regulations that involve significant economic or policy issues unless Congress expressly authorizes them. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the Court overturned the Chevron principle, holding that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies' interpretation of the law or to their own rulemaking. Together, these cases demonstrate that a large number of existing federal regulations go beyond the authority given by Congress by law.
The Office of Government Efficiency will work with legal experts in government agencies to apply these rulings to federal regulations created by those agencies, with the help of advanced technology. The Office of Government Efficiency will present the list of regulations to President Donald Trump, who can immediately suspend their implementation through executive action and initiate a review and repeal process. This would free individuals and businesses from illegal regulations that Congress never passed, and stimulate the American economy.
When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics accuse the executive of overstepping his authority. In fact, this is correcting executive overreach, i.e. the thousands of regulations enacted through executive orders that were never authorized by Congress. The president should obey Congress when legislating, not bureaucrats within federal agencies. Using executive orders to add cumbersome new rules to replace legislation is a violation of the Constitution, but using executive order to repeal statutes that wrongly circumvent Congress is legal and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's recent authorization. And, after these regulations have been fully repealed, future presidents cannot simply press the switch to restore them, but will have to ask Congress to do so.
The drastic cuts in federal regulations provide a reasonable industry logic for mass layoffs across the federal bureaucracy. The Office of Government Efficiency intends to work with agencies' in-house appointees to determine the minimum number of employees required for an agency to perform constitutionally permitted and statutory functions. The number of federal employees cut should be at least proportional to the number of federal statutes repealed: Not only will fewer employees be needed to enforce fewer statutes, but the agency will create fewer of them once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose jobs have been eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and the Government Efficiency Office aims to help them transition into the private sector. The president could use existing laws to encourage them to retire early and pay voluntary severance payments to facilitate their dignified departure.
Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil service protections prevent the president and even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the regulations allow for "laying off" that does not target specific employees. The statute further authorizes the president to "develop rules governing competitive services." This power is very broad. Previous presidents have used this power to amend civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court ruled in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they were not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act when they did so. With this authority, President Trump could curb the excesses of the executive branch by implementing a variety of "rules governing competitive services," from mass firings to relocating federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to work in the office five days a week will lead to a wave of voluntary departures, which we welcome: if federal employees don't want to work, American taxpayers shouldn't pay them the privilege of staying home in the age of the coronavirus.Finally, we are committed to cost savings for the taxpayer. Skeptics question how much federal spending the Office of Government Efficiency can control with administrative means alone. They point out that the Appropriations Control Act of 1974 prevents the president from halting spending authorized by Congress. President Trump has previously said the bill is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court is likely to uphold his view on this issue. But even without relying on this view, the Office of Government Efficiency will help end federal overspending by targeting more than $500 billion a year in federal spending that Congress did not authorize or used in ways that Congress never intended. From $535. million a year for public broadcasters and $1.5 billion in grants to international organizations, tonearly $300 million for progressive groups such as family planning.
The federal government's procurement process is also deeply flawed. Many federal contracts have gone unreviewed for years. Large-scale audits during the suspension of payments could result in significant financial savings. The Pentagon recently failed an audit for the seventh time in a row, suggesting that the agency's leadership knows almost nothing about how its more than $800 billion annual budget is spent. Critics claim that we can't effectively and meaningfully close the federal deficit without targeting entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid that Congress needs to shrink. However, this diverts attention from waste, fraud and abuse, which almost all taxpayers want to end, and the Office of Government Efficiency aims to save taxpayers immediately by identifying precise administrative measures to address them.
With a decisive electoral mandate and the Supreme Court's 6: 3 conservative majority, the Office of Government Efficiency has a historic opportunity to make structural cuts to the federal government. We are ready to deal with a shock from entrenched interests in Washington. We look forward to winning. Now is the time for decisive action.
Our primary goal for the Office of Government Efficiency is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026... the deadline we set for the project. On the 250th anniversary of our founding, there is no better birthday present than building a federal government that our founding fathers are proud of.
马斯克：DOGE部门改革政府计划
发布时间：美国当地时间2024年11月20日
发布媒体：《华尔街日报》
主题：遵循最高法院的指引，将扭转长达数十年的行政权力扩张。
截图自华尔街日报，版权属于原作者
中文版全文
我们的国家建立在一个基本理念之上：由选民选举产生的人来治理政府。然而，当今的美国并非如此！
如今，大部分法律不是由国会通过，而是由那些没有经过选举的官僚通过“规则和条例”制定出来的。每年，这些规则和条例的数量以成千上万计增长。
更夸张的是，大部分政府的执行决策和开销安排，也不是由民选的总统，甚至他的高层任命官员决定的，而是由数百万没选过、没任命过的公务员拍板。他们仗着公务员制度的保护，觉得自己根本不可能被解雇。
这种现状不仅背离了民主原则，还完全违背了建国者的初衷。同时，它还让纳税人付出了巨大的代价。不过，好消息是，现在我们终于迎来了改变这一切的机会。11 月 5 日，选民们明确支持川普总统，并授权他进行大刀阔斧的改革。
政府效率办公室：干实事的团队
为了解决问题，川普总统任命我们成立“政府效率部”（简称 DOGE，也叫政府效率办公室）。我们的目标很明确：精简联邦政府。
过去，庞大的官僚体系成了美国的绊脚石，而很多政客都选择袖手旁观。膨胀的官僚机构对美国社会构成了生存威胁，长期以来，政客们对此听之任之。
但我们不一样，我们不是政客，而是企业家。我们的团队也不是来走过场的——不是写写报告、剪剪彩，而是要实打实地削减成本，解决问题。
我们正在协助川普的过渡团队，组建一个精简的小型政府改革团队，挑选全国最顶尖的技术和法律人才。这个团队将与新政府中的白宫管理和预算办公室密切合作。我们两人将为政府效率办公室的每一步提供建议，以落实三个广泛的改革类别：监管、行政缩减和成本节约。
改革的法律依据
我们将特别强调通过现有法律授权的行政行动推动改革，而非通过制定新法案。
我们的改革将以《美国宪法》为指引，重点关注他任期内的两项重要最高法院判决：
1.西弗吉尼亚州诉环境保护署案（2022）
明确规定，政府机构在没有国会授权的情况下，不能颁布重大经济或政策法规。
2.Loper Bright 诉 Raimondo 案（2024）
废除了“切夫伦原则”，联邦法院不应过度尊重政府机构对法律的解释。
这两项裁定表明，现存的大量联邦法规超越了国会赋予的权力。
接下来，我们的任务就是根据这些裁定，与各机构的法律专家一起清理法规，用技术手段列出需要废除的法规清单，并提交给总统，由他通过行政命令暂停和废除它们。这不仅恢复了宪法秩序，还能让企业和个人摆脱不必要的束缚，为经济注入新活力，刺激美国经济。
削减法规，裁员合理化
废除法规自然意味着裁员。我们将和各机构合作，确定它们维持正常运转的最小员工需求，按比例裁减那些因为法规减少而变得多余的岗位。对于被裁掉的联邦雇员，我们会提供尊重的待遇，包括提前退休计划或自愿离职补偿金，帮助他们顺利转到私营部门，以促成他们有尊严的离开。
此外，川普总统将利用现有法律赋予的“竞争性服务规则”权限，推出一系列改革措施，比如将机构搬离华盛顿，要求雇员恢复线下办公。如果联邦雇员不愿工作，美国纳税人不应该在后疫情时代，支付他们在家办公的特权。
削减成本与提高效率
有人可能会质疑，单靠行政手段能省下多少钱？其实，联邦政府浪费的问题比很多人想象的严重，政府效率办公室致力于解决联邦过度开支问题，计划锁定超过5000亿美元未经国会授权或被滥用的联邦支出。而解决它并不需要动福利项目，只需要从以下几个方面入手：
1.清理滥用资金：比如每年 5.35 亿美元的公共广播拨款、15 亿美元的国际组织补助，甚至几亿资助某些进步组织的资金。
优化采购流程：很多联邦合同年年花钱却不审查，尤其是五角大楼，连续第七年审计失败，让人连它的 8000 多亿年度预算用到哪都搞不清。
尽管批评者认为，削减Medicare和Medicaid等福利项目是有效减少联邦赤字的关键，但这忽略了浪费、欺诈和滥用问题——几乎所有纳税人都希望优先解决这些问题。
政府效率办公室将通过精准的行政措施，直面这些挑战，帮助纳税人立即节省资金。
目标明确：2026 年大限
凭借明确的选举授权和最高法院6:3的保守派多数，政府效率办公室迎来了一个前所未有的历史契机，得以推动联邦政府的结构性精简。我们已做好准备，应对华盛顿根深蒂固的既得利益集团的挑战，并充满信心地迈向胜利。现在是采取果断行动的关键时刻。
我们的核心目标是，在2026年7月4日之前——这一目标日期也是我们为该项目设定的最终期限——彻底取消政府效率办公室的存在必要性。
届时，正值我们国家建国250周年，这将是送给建国先贤最令人骄傲的礼物：一个更加高效、简洁、符合建国理想的联邦政府。这将是给美国最好的生日礼物！
英文版全文
Our country is built on the basic idea that the people we elect to run the government are the ones we edict. But that's not the case in America today. Most of the provisions of the law are not laws enacted by Congress, but "rules and regulations" enacted by unelected bureaucrats... there are tens of thousands of rules and regulation every year. Most of the government's law enforcement decisions and discretionary spending are made not by the elected president or even his politically appointed officials, but by the millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants in government agencies who believe they will not be fired because of the protections of the civil service.
This approach is anti-democratic and runs counter to the vision of the Founding Fathers. It imposes significant direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to address this. On November 5, voters decisively elected Trump and authorized him to make sweeping changes that they (taxpayers) deserve.
President Trump asked the two of us to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency.Of Government Efficiency, DOGE- Also known as the Office of Government Efficiency) to reduce the size of the federal government. The entrenched, ballooning bureaucracy poses an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have tolerated it for a long time. That's why we're taking a different approach. We're entrepreneurs, not politicians. We are outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government committees or advisory committees, we don't just write reports or cut ribbons. We're going to cut costs.
We are assisting the Trump transition team in identifying and hiring a lean team of small government reform fighters, including some of the nation's brightest technical and legal talent. The team will work closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget in the new administration. The two of us will advise the Office of Government Efficiency at every step to implement three broad categories of reform: deregulation, administrative reduction, and cost savings. We will place particular emphasis on promoting reform through executive action based on existing legislation rather than through the enactment of new laws. The polar star of our reform will be the Constitution of the United States, focusing on two important Supreme Court decisions during his tenure.
In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies cannot enforce regulations that involve significant economic or policy issues unless Congress expressly authorizes them. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the Court overturned the Chevron principle, holding that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies' interpretation of the law or to their own rulemaking. Together, these cases demonstrate that a large number of existing federal regulations go beyond the authority given by Congress by law.
The Office of Government Efficiency will work with legal experts in government agencies to apply these rulings to federal regulations created by those agencies, with the help of advanced technology. The Office of Government Efficiency will present the list of regulations to President Donald Trump, who can immediately suspend their implementation through executive action and initiate a review and repeal process. This would free individuals and businesses from illegal regulations that Congress never passed, and stimulate the American economy.
When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics accuse the executive of overstepping his authority. In fact, this is correcting executive overreach, i.e. the thousands of regulations enacted through executive orders that were never authorized by Congress. The president should obey Congress when legislating, not bureaucrats within federal agencies. Using executive orders to add cumbersome new rules to replace legislation is a violation of the Constitution, but using executive order to repeal statutes that wrongly circumvent Congress is legal and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's recent authorization. And, after these regulations have been fully repealed, future presidents cannot simply press the switch to restore them, but will have to ask Congress to do so.
The drastic cuts in federal regulations provide a reasonable industry logic for mass layoffs across the federal bureaucracy. The Office of Government Efficiency intends to work with agencies' in-house appointees to determine the minimum number of employees required for an agency to perform constitutionally permitted and statutory functions. The number of federal employees cut should be at least proportional to the number of federal statutes repealed: Not only will fewer employees be needed to enforce fewer statutes, but the agency will create fewer of them once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose jobs have been eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and the Government Efficiency Office aims to help them transition into the private sector. The president could use existing laws to encourage them to retire early and pay voluntary severance payments to facilitate their dignified departure.
Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil service protections prevent the president and even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the regulations allow for "laying off" that does not target specific employees. The statute further authorizes the president to "develop rules governing competitive services." This power is very broad. Previous presidents have used this power to amend civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court ruled in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they were not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act when they did so. With this authority, President Trump could curb the excesses of the executive branch by implementing a variety of "rules governing competitive services," from mass firings to relocating federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to work in the office five days a week will lead to a wave of voluntary departures, which we welcome: if federal employees don't want to work, American taxpayers shouldn't pay them the privilege of staying home in the age of the coronavirus.Finally, we are committed to cost savings for the taxpayer. Skeptics question how much federal spending the Office of Government Efficiency can control with administrative means alone. They point out that the Appropriations Control Act of 1974 prevents the president from halting spending authorized by Congress. President Trump has previously said the bill is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court is likely to uphold his view on this issue. But even without relying on this view, the Office of Government Efficiency will help end federal overspending by targeting more than $500 billion a year in federal spending that Congress did not authorize or used in ways that Congress never intended. From $535. million a year for public broadcasters and $1.5 billion in grants to international organizations, tonearly $300 million for progressive groups such as family planning.
The federal government's procurement process is also deeply flawed. Many federal contracts have gone unreviewed for years. Large-scale audits during the suspension of payments could result in significant financial savings. The Pentagon recently failed an audit for the seventh time in a row, suggesting that the agency's leadership knows almost nothing about how its more than $800 billion annual budget is spent. Critics claim that we can't effectively and meaningfully close the federal deficit without targeting entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid that Congress needs to shrink. However, this diverts attention from waste, fraud and abuse, which almost all taxpayers want to end, and the Office of Government Efficiency aims to save taxpayers immediately by identifying precise administrative measures to address them.
With a decisive electoral mandate and the Supreme Court's 6: 3 conservative majority, the Office of Government Efficiency has a historic opportunity to make structural cuts to the federal government. We are ready to deal with a shock from entrenched interests in Washington. We look forward to winning. Now is the time for decisive action.
Our primary goal for the Office of Government Efficiency is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026... the deadline we set for the project. On the 250th anniversary of our founding, there is no better birthday present than building a federal government that our founding fathers are proud of.
REF原文链接：
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-and-ramaswamy-the-doge-plan-to-reform-government-supreme-court-guidance-end-executive-power-grab-fa51c020