By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy plan to utilize recent Supreme Court decisions in *West Virginia v. EPA* and *Loper Bright* to dismantle federal regulations, believing these rulings expand executive power to do so. However, legal experts contend this interpretation is flawed, arguing the rulings actually restrict agency authority and complicate the process of overturning existing rules. The process of removing regulations is lengthy, resource-intensive, and faces potential legal challenges. Therefore, achieving significant deregulation will be considerably more difficult than Musk and Ramaswamy suggest.
Read the original article here
Musk and Ramaswamy’s proclaimed ability to drastically slash federal regulations seems significant at first glance, but a closer look reveals the situation is far more nuanced. Their apparent power hinges on their proximity to a potential Trump administration, but even that connection doesn’t guarantee the sweeping changes they envision. The reality is that their influence is significantly limited by the established structure of American government.
Their self-proclaimed positions lack the legal backing and formal authority necessary to execute such ambitious plans. They haven’t been elected or appointed to any official government roles, meaning their influence relies entirely on their informal advisory capacity within a future Trump administration. This is a far cry from possessing the direct power to simply eliminate regulations. It’s more akin to lobbying, albeit on a significantly grander – and arguably more worrying – scale.
The legislative process, in all its complexity, stands as a significant barrier. Even if Trump were to fully endorse Musk and Ramaswamy’s regulatory overhaul, Congress would still hold the ultimate power over budgetary allocations and legislative approvals. This means that even executive orders, a tool often wielded by presidents to bypass Congress, are subject to court challenges and, ultimately, the will of the legislature. Expecting Congress to unanimously support the wholesale dismantling of existing regulations is unrealistic.
Furthermore, the vast federal bureaucracy itself presents a formidable challenge. The sheer size and complexity of government agencies ensure that significant resistance to such dramatic change is practically guaranteed. Years of established procedures, entrenched interests, and internal safeguards make it highly unlikely that a complete regulatory bonfire could be swiftly implemented. There are considerable legal ramifications for any attempts to circumvent such established processes.
The optimistic view, that Musk and Ramaswamy’s suggestions will be rubber-stamped by Trump, ignores the practical realities of power. Previous examples illustrate the limitations of even a determined president’s ability to reshape complex systems overnight. Past administrations have attempted similar large-scale changes only to encounter considerable resistance and ultimately achieve only partial success. The inertia of the system is enormous.
There’s also the very real risk of legal challenges. Any drastic regulatory changes could face immediate and vigorous legal opposition. This could tie up proposed reforms in years of litigation, even if they initially survive political hurdles. The courts’ role as a crucial check on executive power must not be underestimated, especially in a highly contested political climate.
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Trump gives Musk and Ramaswamy almost total authority, the actual implementation of their plans faces insurmountable obstacles. There are simply too many checks and balances in place to permit the swift and unilateral eradication of regulations. The influence of established political players, entrenched bureaucracies, and the legal system all stand as barriers.
In essence, Musk and Ramaswamy’s claims of wielding significant power to cut federal regulations are heavily overstated. Their influence is predicated on their proximity to power, not actual power itself. While they may propose changes and lobby for their implementation, the actual realization of their ambitions is far from guaranteed, and faces significant legal and political hurdles. The American system, with its intricate checks and balances, is not easily overturned by pronouncements from unelected advisors, however influential. The reality is far more intricate and resistant to such sweeping change.