Speaker 1: I've noticed a lot of people, including a lot of
Speaker 1: people you'd otherwise sort of classify as of the right,
Speaker 1: getting frustrated at Elon Musk and the role he seems
Speaker 1: to be playing within the Trump administration in charge of
Speaker 1: his Department of Government Efficiency, which seems to be a
Speaker 1: sort of ad hoc kind of presidential created entity. Basically,
Speaker 1: he seems to be serving in a role as a
Speaker 1: presidential advisor, a kind of presidential policy advisor. And he's
Speaker 1: got an office set up sort of within the White
Speaker 1: House complex. He's got a staff that he's been able
Speaker 1: to recruit, and he seems to be just going through
Speaker 1: federal expenditures to try to identify waste. And everyone is
Speaker 1: freaking out about this, and I think actually his explanation
Speaker 1: of why people are freaking out about it makes sense. Basically,
Speaker 1: what he said is, you know, in other companies and
Speaker 1: places where he's worked, when you go through wasteful spending
Speaker 1: and you identify people benefiting from wasteful spending in a
Speaker 1: gravy train, those are the people who are going to
Speaker 1: scream and.
Speaker 2: Shout the most.
Speaker 1: And I think of all things, his identification of the
Speaker 1: us Aid Agency, Usaid Agency and it's funding of various
Speaker 1: kinds of things all over the world seems to have
Speaker 1: really touched a nerve on the left because I think
Speaker 1: it was kind of their gravy train for a lot
Speaker 1: of liberal social causes. He Musk's thesis is basically, once
Speaker 1: you identify the source of people's gravy train, you cut
Speaker 1: that off. That makes the people who are wasting the
Speaker 1: money the most angry, and you're going to get the
Speaker 1: most screams in how in Wales. But what I've heard
Speaker 1: is a lot of people yelling, a lot of people
Speaker 1: on the left yelling Elon Musk wasn't elected. This unelected
Speaker 1: person is just flying in and making all of these
Speaker 1: spending cuts blah.
Speaker 2: Blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: So I just want to talk about it and just
Speaker 1: within kind of the theory of how our governance is
Speaker 1: supposed to work. So, first of all, this idea of
Speaker 1: Elon Musk is unelected and therefore his role is somehow illegitimate.
Speaker 1: Plenty of people in the executive branch aren't elected. In fact,
Speaker 1: all but two of them are unelected. Literally, the only
Speaker 1: two people in the executive branch who are elected are
Speaker 1: the President and the Vice President.
Speaker 2: That's it, end of list.
Speaker 1: Nobody else who works for the executive branch is elected
Speaker 1: because nobody else within the executive branch has any authority
Speaker 1: in and of themselves. Let me repeat that, nobody in
Speaker 1: the executive branch has any authority in and of themselves.
Speaker 2: Within the theoretical structure of how.
Speaker 1: Article two of the Constitution works, the executive power of
Speaker 1: the United States is vested in a president.
Speaker 2: Full stop.
Speaker 1: The President is the person charged with enforcing the law.
Speaker 1: All the other executive agencies use his delegated power to
Speaker 1: exercise and enforce the law. Marco Rubio, as Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: has no inherent power of his own. There's nothing inherently
Speaker 1: for him to do within the structure of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: I don't think the Secretary of State is even mentioned
Speaker 1: in the Constitution other than I think one of the
Speaker 1: amendments deals with like the line of succession. But Marco
Speaker 1: Rubio doesn't have any inherent power. His only power is
Speaker 1: to do what Donald Trump tells him to do. Anything
Speaker 1: he does as Secretary of State is an extension of
Speaker 1: the President's power. Now, the only check on this is
Speaker 1: that the chief officers of the United States have to
Speaker 1: be confirmed by the Senate. They are subject to the
Speaker 1: Senate's advice and consent. So Marco Rubio has to go
Speaker 1: through Senate confirmation hearings. Pete Hegseth has to go through
Speaker 1: Senate confirmation hearings.
Speaker 2: All of the.
Speaker 1: Chief officers of the executive branch have to go through.
Speaker 1: Executive have to go through confirmation hearings. But lots of
Speaker 1: people who fulfill various kinds of roles of presidential advisors
Speaker 1: who are not themselves primary officers of the United States,
Speaker 1: but who nonetheless might be assisting the president and formulating policy.
Speaker 1: A lot of the president's policy advisors, white House counsel
Speaker 1: I don't believe is subject to Senate confirmation. A lot
Speaker 1: of presidential advisers are not subject to Senate confirmation, etc.
Speaker 1: Plenty of people who are working within the executive branch.
Speaker 1: I don't believe the chief of staff is chief of
Speaker 1: staff is not subject to Senate confirmation. Plenty of people
Speaker 1: who are critical in helping the president formulate policy are
Speaker 1: not subject to Senate confirmation or Senate review. They're not
Speaker 1: officers who are exercising the president's power. They're just people
Speaker 1: who are giving the president advice. The theoretical structure, as
Speaker 1: far as I see it, of what Elon Musk is
Speaker 1: doing is he is serving as a high level presidential advisor,
Speaker 1: a high level presidential policy advisor. And as far as
Speaker 1: I see it, I mean, given that the president's in
Speaker 1: charge of the executive branch, like people are getting all angry,
Speaker 1: what business does Elon must have looking at you know,
Speaker 1: Treasury Department transactions.
Speaker 2: He's he's well, he why is he authored? He shouldn't
Speaker 2: have the authority to look at that? Well, sure he should.
Speaker 1: The president certainly has the authority to look at every
Speaker 1: transaction the Treasury is doing. The Treasury is an executive.
Speaker 2: Entity.
Speaker 1: Its action of dispersing money is an executive function.
Speaker 2: It's subject to law.
Speaker 1: But certainly the president has the authority to look at it.
Speaker 1: And if the president has the authority to look at it,
Speaker 1: he can delegate one of his advisors who's helping him
Speaker 1: in his work, to also look at it, I would imagine. So,
Speaker 1: unless there's other kind of legal constraints that I'm not
Speaker 1: aware of, but the idea of saying, well, Elon Musk
Speaker 1: isn't allowed to look at that, Well, if the president's
Speaker 1: allowed to look at it, and he says, Elon Musk
Speaker 1: can look at it. Then Elon Musk can look at it,
Speaker 1: and his staff can look at it if the President
Speaker 1: allows him to look at it. And as far as
Speaker 1: I can tell, all Elon Musk is doing is identifying
Speaker 1: wasteful expenditures and recommending to the relevant executive authorities that
Speaker 1: we should stop funding X, Y, and z. Now, the
Speaker 1: question of whether or not, once Congress is authorized spending,
Speaker 1: does the president have to fund it?
Speaker 2: Can the president fund it? That?
Speaker 1: This is leading to, you know, certain kinds of questions
Speaker 1: about you know, does the president have what? What kind
Speaker 1: of impoundment authority does the president have? Once Congress has
Speaker 1: authorized something to be spent, does the president have to
Speaker 1: spend it legally? Uh?
Speaker 2: Does?
Speaker 1: Can the president exercise a certain kind of executive discretion
Speaker 1: to not spend it?
Speaker 2: Okay? Congress is authorized.
Speaker 1: You know, four billion dollars for the prosecution of a war.
Speaker 1: You're two billion dollars in and the other country surrenders.
Speaker 1: What do you do with that other two billion? Well,
Speaker 1: is the president? Does the president have to spend it
Speaker 1: on that Congress told him he has to? Okay, So
Speaker 1: there's some there's some sort of legal question there about
Speaker 1: what impoundment authority does the president have if Congress has
Speaker 1: mandated that, if Congress has passed legislation for this spending
Speaker 1: to happen, what discretion does the president have? And that
Speaker 1: might differ from one set of monies to another, But
Speaker 1: as far as I can tell, what Elon Musk is
Speaker 1: doing is simply going through federal expenditures and identifying things
Speaker 1: that are wasteful, and then the responsibility for cutting it,
Speaker 1: for stopping that spending on X, Y and z, goes
Speaker 1: to whatever that relevant executive agency is, either to the
Speaker 1: President or also I think, to Congress. Congress has now
Speaker 1: developed committees sort of that are going to run parallel
Speaker 1: to doge I think, but within certainly within the House,
Speaker 1: and I believe in the Senate also various kinds of
Speaker 1: congressional committees are running alongside of it to identify these
Speaker 1: things to be cut down the road in future congressional spend.
Speaker 1: So there's all this sturm and drawing on the left
Speaker 1: about oh, this is terrible, this unelected, unaccountable man, it's
Speaker 1: just running rough shot through federal expenditure. Well, no, he's
Speaker 1: not unelected, and he's not unaccountable. I mean, he was
Speaker 1: part of the Trump campaign. He was a huge Trump
Speaker 1: backround supporter. Everyone knew he was like tight with Trump,
Speaker 1: and Trump was tight with him. And it was clear
Speaker 1: from the campaign that if Trump won, he was gonna
Speaker 1: empower Elon Musk to do this. They announced this in
Speaker 1: August of twenty twenty four. Trump announced, if I win,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna create this thing called the Department of Government Efficiency,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna make Elon Musky charge of it.
Speaker 2: He said it in the campaign. Furthermore, it is politically accountable.
Speaker 1: It is politically accountable in the same way that every
Speaker 1: single executive agency is politically accountable. It's politically accountable because
Speaker 1: it's tied to the president. The president has to worry
Speaker 1: about reelection or his party's reelection, his allies reelection in
Speaker 1: the next four year cycle. If Elon Musk's DOGE entity
Speaker 1: does a bunch of dumb things or illegal things, it
Speaker 1: could be subject to, you know, impeachment efforts or cutting
Speaker 1: off his fund It could result in Trump being subject
Speaker 1: to impeachment efforts or cutting off his funding. And in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty eight election, if DOGE has run un
Speaker 1: wild and done a bunch of bad things that are
Speaker 1: really unpopular. Jd Vance or whoever the Republican nominee is
Speaker 1: going to be, is going to have to be subject
Speaker 1: to the question, Hey, are you going to continue to
Speaker 1: let Elon Musk run rough shot over federal spending with
Speaker 1: his DOGE entity? And Elon and jd Vance is going
Speaker 1: to have to have a policy proposal. Yes, I'm going
Speaker 1: to continue to let Elon and DOGE keep doing its work,
Speaker 1: or whoever becomes Elon's successor no, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: keep doing that. There will be some political accountability for this,
Speaker 1: insofar as it's an executive entity, and.
Speaker 2: It has just as much It has exactly as.
Speaker 1: Much political accountability as any other executive entity. If the
Speaker 1: FBI does a bunch of dumb and stupid stuff, who's
Speaker 1: politically accountable for it? Trump will be Trump, or the
Speaker 1: president or the President's party or jd Vance, whoever is
Speaker 1: going to be politically accountable. If Cash pateel does a
Speaker 1: bunch of dumb stupid things, if the FBI does a
Speaker 1: bunch of dumb stupid things, if the DJ does a
Speaker 1: bunch of dumb stupid things, DJ is ultimately responsive to
Speaker 1: the President.
Speaker 2: So this idea of Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: Was unelected, Well, I mean he's no more or less elected,
Speaker 1: i'd say than Marco Rubio or Pete Hegsath orright, any
Speaker 1: other person who's within the executive branch of government.
Speaker 2: If anything, he's more.
Speaker 1: Elected, because I don't think it was one hundred percent
Speaker 1: clear in the campaign that Marco Rubio was going to
Speaker 1: be the Secretary of State. Everyone knew starting in August
Speaker 1: that this Department of Government efficiency thing was going to
Speaker 1: happen if Trump won, and that Elon was going to
Speaker 1: be in charge of it.
Speaker 2: It was very much part of the deal.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it actually helped Trump get elected.
Speaker 1: I think it's something people actively kind of wanted. So
Speaker 1: this notion of Elon Musk this unelected, unaccountable person, I
Speaker 1: mean he is exact actly as elected and as accountable
Speaker 1: as anyone else within the executive branch. So I find
Speaker 1: all these criticisms at a theoretical level to be very
Speaker 1: silly when we return just.
Speaker 2: A little pet peeve.
Speaker 1: Actors who call themselves activists. Next on the John Girardi Show,
Speaker 1: I've noticed this thing that celebrities seem to do all
Speaker 1: the time, especially after the Grammys. I noticed this with
Speaker 1: a couple of like singers and what Lady Gaga gets
Speaker 1: up at the Grammys and she's.
Speaker 2: Like, oh, you have to protect Chen's kids.
Speaker 1: And you know, all these posturing, foe concerned people. This
Speaker 1: one trend that I notice is on whatever social media
Speaker 1: account that a celebrity has, usually actors and singers, it'll
Speaker 1: say their little bio on their Twitter account or their
Speaker 1: Instagram whatever. It'll say actor, husband, wife, you know, mother,
Speaker 1: singer this, and then it'll always end with this noun
Speaker 1: as a descriptor activist. They're all activists. They all want
Speaker 1: to say that they're activists. Now, all right, let me
Speaker 1: let me.
Speaker 2: Just explain something.
Speaker 1: I don't know how you define an activist, but clearly
Speaker 1: I'm an activist. I run an anti abortion nonprofit organization.
Speaker 1: I've run it for like eight and a half years.
Speaker 1: I'm an activist. I literally we set up a whole
Speaker 1: building to be outside of Planned Parenthood to encourage people
Speaker 1: not to have abortions. We do talks for kids to
Speaker 1: encourage them not to have abortion. We do a whole
Speaker 1: radio show talking about the abortion issue and encouraging people
Speaker 1: to you know, oppose abortion. Blah, blah blah like by
Speaker 1: any measure, I'm an activist. And I don't even call
Speaker 1: myself an activist. I say I'm a nonprofit director. I'm
Speaker 1: a nonprofit director for right.
Speaker 2: You know, I've never used that word.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even pop into my mind that that's the
Speaker 1: way I describe myself. But clearly, if anyone is an activist,
Speaker 1: it's me. Celebrities are not activists. They're like people who
Speaker 1: give to nonprofit causes that they care about, or you know,
Speaker 1: ideological causes they care about.
Speaker 2: They show up.
Speaker 1: At a couple of events for those causes that they
Speaker 1: care about, but they're not activists. It's not their full
Speaker 1: time work. Okay, that's not That is a BS way
Speaker 1: of just patting yourself on the back like you're freaking
Speaker 1: Martin Luther King when you're just an actor or a celebrity.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, lot more on the John Girardi Show
Speaker 1: right after this