Anonymous question

The irony is quite understandable; however, we have the example of Argentina before our eyes: Milei also created a structure in charge of deregulation, and the reduction of the state apparatus there is indeed in full swing. And he doesn’t even have a parliamentary majority yet, whereas in the USA, the problem of passing necessary laws is theoretically much easier to solve.

Of course, we don’t even have an approximate idea of what pitfalls the American deep state hides—that’s why it’s called “deep.” However, it seems to me a good sign that the new department has been allocated very little time for everything, only until 2026, which means they will act quickly. The state machinery of sabotage is quite cumbersome, and there is indeed some chance to overcome its resistance while riding the momentum. Especially if acting in many directions at once, cutting through everything that can be reduced right now from what was planned, and letting what cannot be reduced wait for another convenient opportunity.

Many also snicker at the Ramaswamy/Musk duumvirate, but here there seems to be a fairly logical division of labor, where the former provides analytics, media support, and, if necessary, money, while the latter knows which bureaucrats to talk to and about what to ensure that orders stall less. Will they undermine each other? I doubt it. Musk was born outside the USA and therefore cannot have presidential ambitions; he doesn’t need political points at all. Viveck Ramaswamy, on the other hand, if he decides to run for president in three-plus years, will desperately need a story of maximum constructive cooperation with Musk, so he will lick his boots if necessary.

That’s how I see it. Forgive me for my perhaps excessive naivety and optimism; after all, political analysis is not my field, I am more used to writing fan fiction regarding politics.