Donald Trump announced that, if elected, he would ask the tech billionaire Elon Musk lead a “commission on government effectiveness” that will conduct “a comprehensive financial and performance audit of the entire federal government” and make “recommendations for drastic reforms.”

The idea for such a commission was apparently suggested by Musk himself – and even before Election Day, he’s eager to get started.

“I can’t wait,” he posted on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, which he owns.

Musk believes there is “a lot of unnecessary waste and regulation in government that needs to go.”

The Trump-Musk alliance defies everything we know about human psychology.

Both are outsized and unstable personalities, both require cosmic levels of personal attention, but both go about their business in radically different ways.

Trump is essentially a showman.

The size of his crowds is the measure of his personal worth.

Musk, who claims to have Asperger’s syndrome, communicates primarily online.

Each is a superstar in their field.

How long will it be before a fight breaks out and they start pushing each other?

A crucial update

On the other hand, both men are rule-breakers, deeply hated by progressive establishment decision-makers.

Perhaps they can find common ground in this space of opposition.

Does this matter much in the grand scheme of things?

Trump joked that he would like to see Musk become his “cost-cutting secretary.”

If cutting budgets is the only goal of the putative commission, none of its recommendations will be accepted five seconds after being made.

This is how Washington works.

But if it attempts a fundamental reconfiguration of the federal government — an alignment of industrial-age hierarchies with the realities of digital life — the commission’s work could be transformative.

Only 23% of Americans trust the federal government.

Let that number sink in.

If the reconfiguration succeeds in reducing the distance between public opinion and power, if the concerns of ordinary citizens can be transferred to the ruling elites, the first crucial steps will have been taken towards restoring trust.

Changes in the structure of government are inevitable.

This is not some crazy communist demand – it has happened many times before in our history.

The details, in this case, can be debated, but any plan must respect an overriding categorical imperative: everything must be simplified and everything must be digitized.

Despite the baggage that comes with being the richest human in the solar system, Musk is a good candidate for the task.

If Walter Isaacson’s biography is to be believed, he is an incredibly quick learner, capable of making complex technical and management decisions with remarkable speed.

Musk identified three-quarters of Twitter’s staff as useless drones and fired them within six months of purchasing the platform.

No harmful side effects followed.

As the Twitter episode should make clear, Musk is also a fierce risk-taker.

This is a useful trait to have if you plan to step on the tentacles of the Washington octopus.

Although he is by no means flippant and at times almost inarticulate, Musk has a literal way of communicating that can be strangely compelling.

His example of government overregulation is the hilarious Parable of the Sharks, which tells the story of how his rocket company’s launches, EspaceXwere delayed until it could be proven that no sharks would die as a result.

Yes, the incident is absurd and funny – but it is also far more effective than a whole volume of abstract arguments against a mindless bureaucracy.

People who won’t like it

Finally, Musk is a creature of the digital universe, whose companies are proof of the principle of creation through disruption.

The digital mind views our institutions from a very different perspective: this is true not only of substance, of how things happen, but also of process, of how things are done.

“We’re going to live stream everything we do,” Musk said.

“We’re going to be super transparent.”

In what can only be described as a huge understatement, he added: “Some people may not like it, but we have to do it. »

The commission, we can be sure, will be an Internet affair rather than a musty investigative exercise.

At this early stage, Musk likely hasn’t given much thought to how and where his commission will hunt the dreaded Leviathan.

Like all of us, he awaits events.

This gives me the freedom to speculate on the different paths of reconfiguration, if Trump wins the presidency.

Streamline.

All government needs are met through massive layoffs.

This is partly because the function – the mission – tends to be imprecise, but mainly because bureaucracies grow organically, like weeds.

When I worked for the Intelligence Community, there were at least a half-dozen jobs identical to mine scattered around the IC – and that doesn’t count contractors.

Analysts have written thousands of articles for everyone’s greatest pleasure.

A cynical colleague called the CIA “middle-class welfare.”

I found it a bit harsh, but there were times when the place felt like a job program for political science students.

According to Isaacson, two of Musk’s guiding axioms are “Question Requirements” and “Delete, Delete, Delete.”

They will serve him well.

If government personnel are strictly assigned to their duties, entire agencies, such as the Departments of Labor and Education, will be decimated.

It’s the proverbial low-hanging fruit, ready to be picked.

Scan. Federal agencies need to be dragged loudly into the 21st century.

Digital tools will be applied not only to internal processes but also to open an interactive space to the public.

Agencies that provide services, like Social Security, should be as fast and responsive as Amazon.

Agencies that write laws or regulations should have a Reddit-style digital feedback loop, with privileged content coming to the top.

No doubt there will be howls of pain.

Experts will complain that such reforms would be too disruptive to daily work.

This is precisely their point.

As every other American organization has done, the federal government will adapt to digital proximity to its customers.

An example: the volume of classified information will (and should) be reduced by a factor of 100.

To relocate.

The concept of a tightly centralized “capital”, inherited from the courts of kings, is becoming obsolete.

Remote digital communications make it possible to perform most tasks anywhere.

Selected federal agencies and personnel should be asked to leave Washington and live among the people they serve.

The Department of the Interior, I imagine, would be happy to move to Billings, Montana, to enjoy the sparkling local winters.

The Department of Labor is moving to a high unemployment city like Kokomo, Indiana.

The Department of Education will flee to New York and officially become a branch of the teachers union.

None of these changes should be permanent.

After each census, new approaches, linked to new data, will be proposed and voted on.

Disaggregate.

The government is designed like these Russian dolls that fit together.

This results in a kind of shell game, in which responsibility for mistakes or corruption is hidden under layers of bureaucracy.

Where possible, major Cabinet departments should be separated.

Some are easy targets: Homeland Security, a 9/11-era monstrosity, failed in its mission from the start and will operate more smoothly in its various parts.

The motive is not a nihilistic joy of dismemberment.

It’s responsibility.

A single unit and a single person will be held responsible for everything, good or bad, that comes to us from the government.

Deregulate.

There should never be another rocket launch interrupted by the fear of hitting a shark.

Again, the problem is liability.

It is not enough to drain the swamp of existing regulations: the regulators themselves will be regulated.

The power to legislate will be returned to our elected representatives in Congress.

Desperately needed

Will Musk have the good sense to listen to my suggestions?

And if it does, is there a version of reality in which they could be put into practice?

I don’t know.

But I know that “drastic reforms” are desperately needed.

Reconfiguring modern government – ​​building the next iteration of democracy – is the supreme political challenge of our time, far more important than the issues we argue so passionately about today.

And I’m encouraged that Americans have finally had a chance to talk about it.