Does the power reside with the president

to make large scale or you know riffs or

do they have to consult Congress first?

Your thoughts on this issue?

>> It's an incredibly important ruling,

incredibly right.

I think President Trump should have

absolute leeway to decide how the people

that report to him act and do their job.

M

>> if you take a step back, Jason, there

are more than 2,000 federal agencies,

employees plus contractors,

I think number almost 3 million people.

If you put 3 million people into 2,000

agencies,

and then you give them

very poor and outdated technology, which

unfortunately most of the government

operates on, what are you going to get?

You're going to get incredibly slow

processes.

You're going to get

a lot of checking and double-checking

and you're going to ultimately just get

a lot of regulations because they're

trying to do what they think is the

right job. So since 1993, what have we

seen? Regulations have gotten out of

control. It's like a 100,000 new rules

per some number of months. Like it's

just crazy. So eventually we all succumb

to an infinite number of rules that we

all end up violating and not even know

it.

>> So if the CEO of the United States,

President Trump, isn't allowed to fire

people, then all of that stuff just

compounds. So I think that this is a

really important

thing that just happened. It allows us

to now level set how big should the

government be? But more importantly, the

number of people

in the government are also the ones that

then direct downstream spend that make

net new rules. And if you can slow the

growth of that down, you're actually

doing a lot. In many ways,

I wish Elon had come in and created Doge

now.

>> Like, could you imagine if Doge was

created the day after this Supreme Court

ruling? It would have been a totally

different outcome, I think, because with

that Supreme Court ruling in hand, these

guys probably would have been like a hot

knife through butter,

>> Travis.

>> So, I I think it's a big deal.

>> Except that ruling doesn't happen

without Doge. That Doge caused that

ruling to occur.

>> True. Well, the EO did you could have

passed all that was all Doge style,

though. You know what I'm saying? It was

>> If if they wasn't firing people, yeah,

they probably wouldn't felt the need to

your point, Travis, to actually file

this. Travis, if you are living in the

age of AI efficiency right now,

operations of companies is changing

dramatically. Can you imagine telling

somebody you you can be CEO, but you

can't change personnel. That's the job.

You get to be CEO, but you just can't

change the players on the team. You can

buy the Knicks, but you can't change the

coach.

>> No, you can grow it. You just can't

shrink it.

>> It's like a It's like running a

unionized company, which actually does

exist or largeized companies where you

can't do any of these things,

>> right? Do do they still exist or are

they all gone?

>> They're going quickly.

>> Yeah, probably.

>> I think this just gets back to what what

is actually Congress authorizing when a

bill occurs. And there's certain things

that are specific and certain things

that aren't. And I don't I'm not sure

that in a lot of these bills, it's not

very specific about exactly how many

people must be hired. And so if it's I'm

just doing the common man's sort of

approach to this, which is like if if

the law says you have to hire X number

of people, then that is what it is. If

the law says you here's some money to

spend, here are the ways in which to

spend it, but it's not specific about

how many people you hire, then that is

different.

>> Yeah. It should be outcome based. Hey,

here's the goal. Here's the the key

objectives, right?

>> Travis Travis is totally right. Like

there are there's a variety of different

laws, some with incredible

specificities, some with very broad

mandates. The Constitution clearly says

that all executive power resides in the

president of the United States. Period.

There's no exceptions there. However,

Congress does appropriate money and post

Watergate,

many people think Congress has the power

to force the president to spend the

money. And you can debate that. You can

debate it on a per statute basis. and

that will be more nuanced and that's

going to get litigated whether the

president can refuse to spend money that

Congress explicitly instructed him to

spend sometimes called empowerment.

That's a very interesting intellectual

debate. This one's a little bit easier.

It'll get more complicated again like

this EO is only approved to allow for

the planning. I think the vote might be

closer. I think there's still a majority

on the Supreme Court for the actual

implementation, but it may not be 81

when there's a specific plan that has to

navigate its way through the courts

again.

>> Yeah, it's super fascinating.

Yeah. I wonder if they're going to get

to the point where they're going to say

in every bill, you need to hire this

number of people to hit

>> I don't I don't know if they can. Like

that's where it gets borderline

unconstitutional. like where you

actually prescribe that the president in

the exercise of his constitutional

duties has to hire certain number of

people

>> that feels pretty precarious.

>> Well, I I I'm not sure, Keith. It's just

like they prescribe a whole bunch of

other things like you must you must

appropriate money for to this specific

institution to do this specific work.

But that's not an executive function.

Like if you said like the secretary of

state has to have x number of employees

doing something. The secretary of state

is your personal representative to

conduct foreign affairs on behalf of the

president of the United States. It gets

a little bit more messy as you translate

it to people um that the president

should I mean yes Congress does set you

know which people are subject to Senate

confirmation, what their salaries and

compensation bans are. So it's it's

never going to be fully binary where the

president can do whatever he wants and

it's never gonna I don't think it'll be

constitutional for Congress to mandate

and put all kinds of handcuffs on the

president.

>> Well, then you you also have performance

that comes in here. What if you look at

the Department of Education? You say

scores have gone down. We've spent this

money. We're not getting the results.

Therefore, these people are incompetent.

Therefore, I'm firing them for cause and

I'm going to hire new people. How are

you going to stop the executive from

doing that? There's been a bunch of

litigation, you know, in parallel to

this litigation about the president's

ability to fire people. And for the most

part, the Supreme Court's basically,

with maybe the exception of the Federal

Reserve chair, said that the president

can fire pretty much anybody he wants.

>> I mean, that's the way to go is like I

mean, I hate to be cut, but if the

results aren't there,

>> I think if they're presidential Yeah. If

they're a presidential appointee, the

president should be able to fire you at

will. Just like if you were a VP at one

of our companies, the CEO should be able

to fire you at will.

>> But what about Keith? If the whole

department sucks. Hey, you guys were

responsible for early education. You had

to put together a plan. The plan failed.

Everybody's fired. We're starting over.

Like, you should be allowed to do that.

How are we going to have an efficient

government?

>> Some of these departments were created

by congressional statute like the

Department of Education in 1979. And

you're right, every single educational

stat has got worse in the United States

since the department was created. But

there is a law on the books that says

there shall be a department of

education. So you may have to repeal