If Congress does not act to prevent Donald Trump and Elon Musk from assuming control over federal spending, who will?
By Danny R. Johnson – Political News Editor
WASHINGTON, DC — A constitutional crisis can develop slowly or appear suddenly. Elon Musk, assigned by Donald Trump to address the congressional spending authority outlined in Article I of the Constitution, has made his intentions clear upon his arrival in Washington.
“This is the one shot the American people have to defeat BUREAUcracy, rule of the bureaucrats, and restore DEMOcracy, rule of the people,” Musk wrote at 3:59 a.m. today on his social media platform. “We’re never going to get another chance like this. It’s now or never. Your support is crucial to the success of the people’s revolution.” Musk, as a proxy for Trump, cast himself as a revolutionary force and embodiment of the popular will, demanding extraordinary powers to fight some unstated emergency.
Why is it considered essential to eliminate these programs immediately? If they are identified as having issues of waste and fraud, Congress could potentially pass legislation to reduce or resolve the problem, with the option to revisit the issue if initial efforts fall short. Instead, Musk points to a crisis that necessitates suspending normal operations and centralizing decision-making power. Reports indicate that he works in the Eisenhower Building with a small team of young engineers who lack government experience, focusing on identifying potential issues within long-standing federal programs.
The situation highlights a flaw in the Constitution’s design: the Founders did not foresee the rise of political parties. They believed each government branch would guard its powers and check the others. However, political parties have incentivized legislators to act as presidential supporters. Trump exploits this by merging his interests with those of the Republican Party and using his assertive persona to influence Congress more than any other president.
Theoretically, Congress should resist Musk’s influence over federal programs. However, many Republicans support Trump’s goals, fearing primary challenges if they oppose him. This constitutional crisis favors the right, as Trump and Musk could shift spending power away from Congress. This would allow the president to cut spending without congressional accountability, benefiting small-government conservatives by enabling policies they previously avoided voting for.
While some conservative intellectuals, like Brian Riedl and Jack Goldsmith, have called Musk’s ambitions unconstitutional, most of the establishment right has either supported him or remained silent. Senator Thom Tillis admitted it might not be strictly constitutional but told NOTUS that “nobody should bellyache about that.”
The legal ambiguity surrounding Musk is troubling. Operating in secrecy without public oversight, his team allegedly accessed the Treasury Department’s federal payment system, bypassing safety protocols. Democrats believe Musk may be violating federal laws, but the lack of oversight makes verifying it difficult. Trump’s willingness to pardon January 6 insurrectionists suggests Musk might not be concerned about adhering to the law.
Musk described his opposition to his actions as criminal. He referred to the United States Agency for International Development, a long-established program supported by both political parties, as a “criminal organization.” When an X user posted the names of young engineers working with Musk, which Wired had previously reported, he said, “You have committed a crime.” The user’s account has since been suspended.
Reporting on powerful public officials is not a crime, even if those officials have assumed power informally. Nonetheless, Musk has received support from Edward R. Martin Jr., a former “Stop the Steal” organizer appointed by Trump as U.S. attorney for D.C. In a menacing message on X, Martin warned of potential legal actions against those allegedly targeting DOGE employees but did not specify the individuals or laws involved. He also ignored the fact that reporting on Musk’s activities is protected by the First Amendment. Whether Martin will act on these threats remains uncertain, but his statements add to the threatening atmosphere around Trump and Musk by giving their warnings a legal façade.
The courts will decide on Trump’s power grab, likely affirming Congress’s authority to set spending levels as per the Constitution. Ultimately, the Constitution means what five Supreme Court justices interpret it to mean. Conservative justices often adopt the most right-wing interpretation possible, sometimes beyond plausible defense.
Musk appears to understand that he can dismantle programs and bureaucratic cultures quicker than they can be rebuilt. By mass-firing officials and disrupting services, he creates confusion and financial risk, undermining institutions swiftly while rebuilding is slow. This urgency may explain why he insists his work must happen “now or never.”
Even the most dedicated small-government conservative lawmaker would not design a process like the current one: several political novices, many deeply influenced by right-wing conspiracy theories, are making arbitrary decisions about the federal budget. No elected body has designed this process. Instead, Trump and Musk have taken this authority upon themselves. The urgent task is to return this power to the legislature to prevent further irreversible damage.
