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 Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Scott McGregor warns that Chinese hybrid warfare is no longer hypothetical—it’s unfolding in Canada now. TD Bank’s closure of CCP-linked accounts highlights the rising infiltration of financial interests. From cyberattacks to guanxi-driven influence, Canada’s institutions face a systemic threat. As banks sound the alarm, Ottawa dithers. McGregor calls for urgent, whole-of-society action before foreign interference further erodes our sovereignty.
Chinese hybrid warfare isn’t coming. It’s here. And Canada’s response has been dangerously complacent
The recent revelation by The Globe and Mail that TD Bank has closed accounts linked to pro-China groups—including those associated with former Liberal MP Han Dong—should not be dismissed as routine risk management. Rather, it is a visible sign of a much deeper and more insidious campaign: a hybrid war being waged by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) across Canada’s political, economic and digital spheres.
TD Bank’s move—reportedly driven by “reputational risk” and concerns over foreign interference—marks a rare, public signal from the private sector. Politically exposed persons (PEPs), a term used in banking and intelligence circles to denote individuals vulnerable to corruption or manipulation, were reportedly among those flagged. When a leading Canadian bank takes action while the government remains hesitant, it suggests the threat is no longer theoretical. It is here.
Hybrid warfare refers to the use of non-military tools—such as cyberattacks, financial manipulation, political influence and disinformation—to erode a nation’s sovereignty and resilience from within. In The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard, co-authored with Ina Mitchell, we detailed how the CCP has developed a complex and opaque architecture of influence within Canadian institutions. What we’re seeing now is the slow unravelling of that system, one bank record at a time.
Financial manipulation is a key component of this strategy. CCP-linked actors often use opaque payment systems—such as WeChat Pay, UnionPay or cryptocurrency—to move money outside traditional compliance structures. These platforms facilitate the unchecked flow of funds into Canadian sectors like real estate, academia and infrastructure, many of which are tied to national security and economic competitiveness.
Layered into this is China’s corporate-social credit system. While framed as a financial scoring tool, it also functions as a mechanism of political control, compelling Chinese firms and individuals—even abroad—to align with party objectives. In this context, there is no such thing as a genuinely independent Chinese company.
Complementing these structural tools is guanxi—a Chinese system of interpersonal networks and mutual obligations. Though rooted in trust, guanxi can be repurposed to quietly influence decision-makers, bypass oversight and secure insider deals. In the wrong hands, it becomes an informal channel of foreign control.
Meanwhile, Canada continues to face escalating cyberattacks linked to the Chinese state. These operations have targeted government agencies and private firms, stealing sensitive data, compromising infrastructure and undermining public confidence. These are not isolated intrusions—they are part of a broader effort to weaken Canada’s digital, economic and democratic institutions.
The TD Bank decision should be seen as a bellwether. Financial institutions are increasingly on the front lines of this undeclared conflict. Their actions raise an urgent question: if private-sector actors recognize the risk, why hasn’t the federal government acted more decisively?
The issue of Chinese interference has made headlines in recent years, from allegations of election meddling to intimidation of diaspora communities. TD’s decision adds a new financial layer to this growing concern.
Canada cannot afford to respond with fragmented, reactive policies. What’s needed is a whole-of-society response: new legislation to address foreign interference, strengthened compliance frameworks in finance and technology, and a clear-eyed recognition that hybrid warfare is already being waged on Canadian soil.
The CCP’s strategy is long-term, multidimensional and calculated. It blends political leverage, economic subversion, transnational organized crime and cyber operations. Canada must respond with equal sophistication, coordination and resolve.
The mosaic of influence isn’t forming. It’s already here. Recognizing the full picture is no longer optional. Canadians must demand transparency, accountability and action before more of our institutions fall under foreign control.
Scott McGregor is a defence and intelligence veteran, co-author of The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard, and the managing partner of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting Ltd. He is a senior security adviser to the Council on Countering Hybrid Warfare and a former intelligence adviser to the RCMP and the B.C. Attorney General. He writes for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Major automakers are urging Congress to intervene and halt California’s aggressive plan to eliminate gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. With the Biden-era EPA waiver empowering California and 11 other states to enforce the rule, automakers warn of immediate impacts on vehicle availability and consumer choice. The U.S. House is preparing for a critical vote to determine if California’s sweeping environmental mandates will stand.
Key Details:
-
Automakers argue California’s rules will raise prices and limit consumer choices, especially amid high tariffs on auto imports.
-
The House is set to vote this week on repealing the EPA waiver that greenlit California’s mandate.
-
California’s regulations would require 35% of 2026 model year vehicles to be zero-emission, a figure manufacturers say is unrealistic.
Diving Deeper:
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing industry giants such as General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, issued a letter Monday warning Congress about the looming consequences of California’s radical environmental regulations. The automakers stressed that unless Congress acts swiftly, vehicle shipments across the country could be disrupted within months, forcing car companies to artificially limit sales of traditional vehicles to meet electric vehicle quotas.
California’s Air Resources Board rules have already spread to 11 other states—including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—together representing roughly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market. Despite repeated concerns from manufacturers, California officials have doubled down, insisting that their measures are essential for meeting lofty greenhouse gas reduction targets and combating smog. However, even some states like Maryland have recognized the impracticality of California’s timeline, opting to delay compliance.
A major legal hurdle complicates the path forward. The Government Accountability Office ruled in March that the EPA waiver issued under former President Joe Biden cannot be revoked under the Congressional Review Act, which requires only a simple Senate majority. This creates uncertainty over whether Congress can truly roll back California’s authority without more complex legislative action.
The House is also gearing up to tackle other elements of California’s environmental regime, including blocking the state from imposing stricter pollution standards on commercial trucks and halting its low-nitrogen oxide emissions regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. These moves reflect growing concerns that California’s progressive regulatory overreach is threatening national commerce and consumer choice.
Under California’s current rules, the state demands that 35% of light-duty vehicles for the 2026 model year be zero-emission, scaling up rapidly to 68% by 2030. Industry experts widely agree that these targets are disconnected from reality, given the current slow pace of electric vehicle adoption among the broader American public, particularly in rural and lower-income areas.
California first unveiled its plan in 2020, aiming to make at least 80% of new cars electric and the remainder plug-in hybrids by 2035. Now, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Transportation Department is working to undo the aggressive fuel economy regulations imposed during former President Joe Biden’s term, offering a much-needed course correction for an auto industry burdened by regulatory overreach.
As Congress debates, the larger question remains: Will America allow one state’s left-wing environmental ideology to dictate terms for the entire country’s auto industry?
Red Deer Justice Centre Grand Opening: Building access to justice for Albertans
Police Associations Endorse Conservatives. Poilievre Will Shut Down Tent Cities
When it comes to pipelines, Carney’s words flow both ways
Trump considers $5K bonus for moms to increase birthrate
Former WEF insider accuses Mark Carney of using fear tactics to usher globalism into Canada
Conservatives promise to ban firing of Canadian federal workers based on COVID jab status
Carney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda
-
Automotive2 days ago
Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate
-
COVID-192 days agoFormer Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns
-
Mental Health2 days agoSuspect who killed 11 in Vancouver festival attack ID’d
-
Addictions2 days agoFour new studies show link between heavy cannabis use, serious health risks
-
Alberta1 day agoPremier Danielle Smith responds to election of Liberal government
-
International2 days agoConclave to elect new pope will start on May 7
-
Autism2 days agoUK plans to test children with gender confusion for autism
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoMistrial Declared in Junior Hockey Assault Trial. What Now?