Business
DOGE Theory
One of the most intriguing developments following Donald Trump’s election victory has been the announcement of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The initiative, which hopes to cut up to $2 trillion from the federal budget, has generated notable excitement, momentum, and memes. The world’s richest man and a successful biotech entrepreneur, Ramaswamy, have revitalized what seemed to be a mostly dormant libertarianism, drawing on the inspiration of Milton Friedman and promising to slash the bureaucracy to the bone. But what are its prospects for real-world success?
Elon Musk is our era’s most gifted entrepreneur, having revolutionized several industries and run multiple major companies. But the private sector operates on radically different principles than the public sector, which has a way of stalling or disarming even the most determined efforts. I foresee three potential impediments to DOGE’s success.
First is the problem of authority. While President-elect Trump has dubbed the effort the “Department of Government Efficiency,” it is not a government department at all. Rather, Musk and Ramaswamy will remain in the private sector and preside over what is, in effect, a blue-ribbon committee providing recommendations to the president and to Congress about potential cuts. In practice, though, blue-ribbon committees are often where ideas go to die. Politicians who feel the need to “do something” about a given problem often establish such committees to create the perception of action, which masks their true desire or, at least, the eventual result: inaction.
DOGE’s challenge will be to translate its recommendations into policy. It is almost certain that an entrepreneur of Musk’s ambition will not be content with writing a report. His and Ramaswamy’s task, then, is to persuade the president and the director of the Office of Management and Budget to enact real (and politically risky) cuts, and, if possible, to persuade Congress to abolish entire departments, such as the Department of Education, in the face of left-wing backlash.
The second problem for Musk and Ramaswamy is public opinion. Libertarians and small-government conservatives have long promised to reduce the size of government; one reason that they have never done so is that federal programs and agencies are generally popular. All of the major federal departments, with the exception of the IRS, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice, have net-positive favorability numbers. Congressional members, even conservative Republicans, fear that slashing these departments would expose them to savage criticism from the Left and backlash from voters. They know that Americans complain about the size of government in theory but oppose almost all spending cuts in practice—the key paradox that libertarians have been unable to resolve.
Musk and Ramaswamy have repeatedly appealed to the work of Argentinian president Javier Milei, who has dramatically reduced the number of departments and created flashy video clips of himself stripping down organizational charts and yelling, “Afuera!” But what is possible in Argentina, which has been mired in a decades-long economic crisis, may not be achievable in the United States, which is much more stable, and, consequently, may not have the appetite for such dramatic action.
Which brings us to the problem of politics. Sending a rocket into space requires mastery over physics, but cutting government departments requires mastery over a more formidable enemy: bureaucracy. As Musk and Ramaswamy will see, the relationship between would-be reformers and Congress is vastly different from that between a CEO and a board of directors. To succeed, Musk and Ramaswamy must persuade a group of politicians, each with their own interests, to assume a high level of risk.
DOGE’s first task—identifying the budget items to cut—is the easy part. The hard part will be actually cutting them. They will have to convince Congress, which, for nearly 100 years, has refused to reduce the size of government, even when that notion had bipartisan support, as it did during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who promised that “the era of big government is over.”
This does not mean that DOGE cannot succeed. Though there may not be an appetite for a $2 trillion reduction in government spending, there is a hunger for targeted cuts that would strip the federal government of hostile ideologies that have made our institutions dysfunctional and our national life worse. For example, slashing grant funding for critical race theory would likely win support from voters; cutting the budget for USDA meat inspectors would not, and, given opportunity costs, would probably prove unproductive as well.
Perhaps the name of this committee—the Department of Government Efficiency—is also slightly off the mark. The problem is not only about efficiency, which suggests quantity, but about orientation, which implies quality. The federal government has long been captured by ideologies that misdirect its efforts. Simply making the bureaucracy more efficient will not solve that problem. DOGE must first determine what federal spending is worthwhile; from there, it can focus on creating “efficiencies.”
I hope that Musk and Ramaswamy can dispel my pessimism. Political realities have stifled countless reform efforts before now, and DOGE is an enterprise that would be difficult, if not impossible, under normal circumstances. But these are two remarkably talented men; if anyone is capable of shattering the mold, they can.
Please share your ideas, dissents, and thoughts in the comments. In the next newsletter, we will feature the best material in a“comment of the week” section. In the meantime, have a wonderful Thanksgiving.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
During the latest marathon cabinet meeting on Dec. 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright made news when he told President Donald Trump that “The biggest determinant of the price of energy is politicians, political leaders, and polices — that’s what drives energy prices.”
He’s right about that, and it is why the back-and-forth struggle over federal energy and climate policy plays such a key role in America’s economy and society. Just 10 months into this second Trump presidency, the administration’s policies are already having a profound impact, both at home and abroad.
While the rapid expansion of AI datacenters over the past year is currently being blamed by many for driving up electric costs, power bills were skyrocketing long before that big tech boom began, driven in large part by the policies of the Obama and Biden administration designed to regulate and subsidize an energy transition into reality. As I’ve pointed out here in the past, driving up the costs of all forms of energy to encourage conservation is a central objective of the climate alarm-driven transition, and that part of the green agenda has been highly effective.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
President Trump, Wright, and other key appointees like Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin have moved aggressively throughout 2025 to repeal much of that onerous regulatory agenda. The GOP congressional majorities succeeded in phasing out Biden’s costly green energy subsidies as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law on July 4. As the federal regulatory structure eases and subsidy costs diminish, it is reasonable to expect a gradual easing of electricity and other energy prices.
This year’s fading out of public fear over climate change and its attendant fright narrative spells bad news for the climate alarm movement. The resulting cracks in the green facade have manifested rapidly in recent weeks.
Climate-focused conflict groups that rely on public fears to drive donations have fallen on hard times. According to a report in the New York Times, the Sierra Club has lost 60 percent of the membership it reported in 2019 and the group’s management team has fallen into infighting over elements of the group’s agenda. Greenpeace is struggling just to stay afloat after losing a huge court judgment for defaming pipeline company Energy Transfer during its efforts to stop the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
350.org, an advocacy group founded by Bill McKibben, shut down its U.S. operations in November amid funding woes that had forced planned 25 percent budget cuts for 2025 and 2026. Employees at EDF voted to form their own union after the group went through several rounds of budget cuts and layoffs in recent months.
The fading of climate fears in turn caused the ESG management and investing fad to also fall out of favor, leading to a flood of companies backtracking on green investments and climate commitments. The Net Zero Banking Alliance disbanded after most of America’s big banks – Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and others – chose to drop out of its membership.
The EV industry is also struggling. As the Trump White House moves to repeal Biden-era auto mileage requirements, Ford Motor Company is preparing to shut down production of its vaunted F-150 Lightning electric pickup, and Stellantis cancelled plans to roll out a full-size EV truck of its own. Overall EV sales in the U.S. collapsed in October and November following the repeal of the $7,500 per car IRA subsidy effective Sept 30.
The administration’s policy actions have already ended any new leasing for costly and unneeded offshore wind projects in federal waters and have forced the suspension or abandonment of several projects that were already moving ahead. Capital has continued to flow into the solar industry, but even that industry’s ability to expand seems likely to fade once the federal subsidies are fully repealed at the end of 2027.
Truly, public policy matters where energy is concerned. It drives corporate strategies, capital investments, resource development and movement, and ultimately influences the cost of energy in all its forms and products. The speed at which Trump and his key appointees have driven this principle home since Jan. 20 has been truly stunning.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
From the Canadian Energy Centre
Bigger project maintains decades-long marine safety record
The Trans Mountain system continues its decades-long record of zero marine spills, even as oil tanker traffic has surged more than 800 per cent since the pipeline’s expansion in May 2024.
The number of tankers calling at Trans Mountain’s Westridge Marine Terminal in the Port of Vancouver in one month now rivals the number that used to go through in one year.
A global trend toward safer tanker operations
Trans Mountain’s safe operations are part of a worldwide trend. Global oil tanker traffic is up, yet spills are down, according to the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, a London, UK-based nonprofit that provides data and response support.
Graph courtesy International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation
Transport Canada reports a 95 per cent drop in ship-source oil spills and spill volumes since the 1970s, driven by stronger ship design, improved response and better regulations.
“Tankers are now designed much more safely. They are double-hulled and compartmentalized to mitigate spills,” said Mike Lowry, spokesperson for the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC).
WCMRC: Ready to protect the West Coast
One of WCMRC’s new response vessels arrives in Barkley Sound. Photo courtesy Western Canada Marine Response Corporation
From eight marine bases including Vancouver and Prince Rupert, WCMRC stands at the ready to protect all 27,000 kilometres of Canada’s western coastline.
Lowry sees the corporation as similar to firefighters — training to respond to an event they hope they never have to see.
In September, it conducted a large-scale training exercise for a worst-case spill scenario. This included the KJ Gardner — Canada’s largest spill response vessel and a part of WCMRC’s fleet since 2024.
“It’s part of the work we do to make sure everybody is trained and prepared to use our assets just in case,” Lowry said.
Expanding capacity for Trans Mountain
The K.J. Gardner is the largest-ever spill response vessel in Canada. Photo courtesy Western Canada Marine Response Corporation
WCMRC’s fleet and capabilities were doubled with a $170-million expansion to support the Trans Mountain project.
Between 2012 and 2024, the company grew from 13 people and $12 million in assets to more than 200 people and $213 million in assets.
“About 80 per cent of our employees are mariners who work as deckhands, captains and marine engineers on our vessels,” Lowry said.
“Most of the incidents we respond to are small marine diesel spills — the last one was a fuel leak from a forest logging vessel near Nanaimo — so we have deployed our fleet in other ways.”
Tanker safety starts with strong rules and local expertise
Tanker loading at the Westridge Marine Terminal in the Port of Vancouver. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation
Speaking on the ARC Energy Ideas podcast, Trans Mountain CEO Mark Maki said tanker safety starts with strong regulations, including the use of local pilots to guide vessels into the harbour.
“On the Mississippi River, you have Mississippi River pilots because they know how the river behaves. Same thing would apply here in Vancouver Harbour. Tides are strong, so people who are familiar with the harbor and have years and decades of experience are making sure the ships go in and out safely,” Maki said.
“A high standard is applied to any ship that calls, and our facility has to meet very strict requirements. And we have rejected ships, just said, ‘Nope, that one doesn’t fit the bill.’ A ship calling on our facilities is very, very carefully looked at.”
Working with communities to protect sensitive areas
Beyond escorting ships and preparing for spills, WCMRC partners with coastal communities to map sensitive areas that need rapid protection including salmon streams, clam beds and culturally important sites like burial grounds.
“We want to empower communities and nations to be more prepared and involved,” Lowry said.
“They can help us identify and protect the areas that they value or view as sensitive by working with our mapping people to identify those areas in advance. If we know where those are ahead of time, we can develop a protection strategy for them.”
A look inside the ‘floatel’ housing B.C.’s LNG workforce
Canadians will soon be versed in massive West Coast LPG mega-project
Canada Needs an Alternative to Carney’s One Man Show
FBI may have finally nabbed the Jan. 6 pipe bomber
-
Energy22 hours ago
A look inside the ‘floatel’ housing B.C.’s LNG workforce
-
International1 day ago
FBI may have finally nabbed the Jan. 6 pipe bomber
-
COVID-191 day agoUniversity of Colorado will pay $10 million to staff, students for trying to force them to take COVID shots
-
Energy22 hours agoELZABETH MAY HAS IT WRONG: An Alberta to Prince Rupert Oil Pipeline Will Contribute to Greater Global Oil Tanker Safety
-
espionage1 day agoDigital messages reportedly allege Chinese police targeted dissident who died suspiciously near Vancouver
-
National22 hours agoAlberta will use provincial laws to stop Canadian gov’t from trying to confiscate legal firearms
-
illegal immigration9 hours agoWhile Trump has southern border secure, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants still flooding in from Canada
-
Health2 days ago23,000+ Canadians died waiting for health care in one year as Liberals pushed euthanasia