How William Howard Taft's approach to government efficiency differed from Elon Musk's slash-and-burn tactics
For four months, the world's richest man has played an unprecedented role in U.S. government. At the start of his 2025 term, President Donald Trump asked Elon Musk to cut government 'waste and fraud.' That translated into the Musk-driven firing of 121,000 federal workers, essentially closing entire government programs and departments.
Many Americans protested Musk's work. His unsupervised access to sensitive government materials and unchecked influence over the firing of federal employees represents an unprecedented moment in the United States. An unelected billionaire sought to overhaul the federal government, empowered and legitimized not by Congress but only by the president.
There are two individuals intrinsic to any presidential effort to restructure government: the president himself and the person he entrusts with the task.
In 2025, Musk has been the person designated to carry out the president's aims.
In 1910, it was Frederick Cleveland, an academic, who was President William H. Taft's designated head of his effort to streamline government.
Both presidents, Taft and Trump, have said they wanted to improve how government functioned.
But while Taft worked with Congress to launch his effort, Trump hasn't followed that route. And the men each president asked to lead their efforts were vastly different in the responsibility given to them, and different in values as well as temperament.
Among the many historic attempts by presidents to streamline federal government, Taft's administration provides a distinct parallel to an administration attempting to make government more efficient.
The Taft administration's early 20th-century equivalent to the Musk-run Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, was called the Commission on Economy and Efficiency.
Unlike DOGE, created by presidential fiat via an executive order, Taft's efficiency commission was funded by Congress.
Taft also delegated the work of this reorganization to trusted Cabinet subordinates, rather than an outsider who was not confirmed by Congress. Other presidents of Taft's generation would have found it unthinkable to delegate such consequential work to someone outside of the bureaucracy to the extent that Trump has empowered Musk.
The work of Taft's commission took place during a time of turmoil for the role and power of the president, as the country itself became more powerful and its governance more complex, calling for increased efficiency through streamlining.
Taft organized his commission in 1910, a year into his presidency. It lasted until his divided party led to his election defeat in 1912.
The commission's aims were tied to economy and efficiency – as the commission itself was named. Indeed, Secretary of the Navy George von Lengerke Meyer, one of Taft's trusted Cabinet members, concisely explained how the 'main object was the establishment of a system which would enable the Secretary to administer his office efficiently and economically, with the advice of responsible expert advisers, ensuring continuity of policy for the future.'
Taft came to the presidency in 1909 with clear concepts of how the nation's top office needed to become more powerful to meet the growing country's burgeoning needs.
The presidency, he believed, also needed to expand its power to meet the modernizing demands of the Progressive Era in early 20th-century America. This era put new demands on government to be responsive to the country's expanding needs, from grassroots demands by voters for greater government activism to professionals seeking more efficient support for their businesses from the government.
Taft was critically aware of existing inefficiency, with bureaucratic work overlapping at expense to the government, without any clear mandate, job description or hierarchy. The vision of the commission is clear in a diagram for the War Department that sought to streamline the bureaucracy, conglomerating the existing 18 divisions into eight.
The Commission on Economy and Efficiency focused on providing solutions for this clearly defined problem of government inefficiency. At the time of Taft's final message to Congress in 1913, the commission had submitted 85 reports to Taft encouraging the reorganization of executive departments, including new and specifically defined roles for government employees.
Unlike the radical unilateral actions taken by DOGE, the Taft commission recommended action to Congress for the long term, while making more targeted changes to the executive bureaucracy behind the scenes.
Despite Taft's pleas stressing the need to sustain these changes beyond his tenure, Congress was tired of the empowerment of the executive by Republican presidents Theodore Roosevelt, followed by Taft, and had no incentive to support reorganization.
This is in direct contrast to Trump and Musk's less substantiated concerns over 'fraud and abuse' or ongoing vague concerns over the size and cost of the federal government. That phrasing may inspire more consensus over the problem, but not necessarily the solution.
Taft's choice to head his commission, Frederick Cleveland, was a kindred spirit who believed in a strengthened presidency. Cleveland was an academic with past affiliations with the University of Pennsylvania and New York University. Congress accepted Cleveland's nomination, seeing him as a pioneer in the realm of public administration.
Cleveland fit the Progressive Era's mantra of employing experts. As a professional but not a member of the wealthy elite, and having been considered by Congress, Cleveland represents a clear distinction from Musk, who appears to have little understanding of what an average American may need from an operative federal bureaucracy.
Cleveland reflected the Taft administration's approach of wanting to remold the government without animosity toward federal workers specifically or the government more broadly. He embraced the Progressive Era ethos in seeking to rectify inefficiency.
Streamlining did not equate to big cuts. The priority remained ensuring the American government could meet the increased demands of the new century.
Similar to DOGE, the White House was the command center for the Commission on Economy and Efficiency. That enabled Taft to manage reorganization of the executive branch from the Oval Office.
Not all of the modernizing and streamlining of the federal government would come at the behest of Taft's commission.
Impatient to implement change while awaiting the commission's reports, and with the commission hampered by a decrease in congressional funding in 1912, Taft had immediately sought improvement within his own administration.
But when the commission's reports were finally available, Taft was in the unfortunate position of being a lame duck and could do little besides emphasize the need for further action.
While limited in the short term, the commission's reports were later credited for major changes: 'Although the report fell on deaf ears in Congress, it would become an essential roadmap for the budget reforms of 1921. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 addressed and mirrored the concerns and proposals of the Commission's Report,' as described by the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation.
Unlike DOGE, the approach of Taft and his commission focused on streamlining rather than gutting federal bureaucracy.
That approach was reflective of an era when experts were revered and sought after rather than maligned. As an experienced bureaucrat, Taft characteristically directed that the problem of government inefficiency be studied. This secured his legacy, as his agenda was eventually put into practice and embraced, proving his reflective approach to be ahead of its time.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Laura Ellyn Smith, Arizona State University
Read more:
President Trump promises to make government efficient − and he'll run into the same roadblocks as Presidents Taft, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush, among others
Efficiency − or empire? How Elon Musk's hostile takeover could end government as we know it
Trump's DOGE campaign accelerates 50-year trend of government privatization
Laura Ellyn Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's feud with Trump likely won't blow up Tesla's robotaxi push, analysts say
Elon Musk's relationship with President Donald Trump imploded in a series of social media posts. Tesla's stock took a 14% dip on Thursday before it recovered some of the losses. Analysts said the feud won't have lasting impacts on Tesla's business, including robotaxis. Elon Musk's public sparring with President Donald Trump last week may have briefly put a dent in Tesla's value, but analysts say they can't see any reason the feud would have a long-term impact on the company's business, including its robotaxi ambitions. The feud between Musk and Trump began with the Tesla CEO's criticism of the GOP's spending bill, which slashes EV tax credits and is estimated to add more than $2.4 trillion to the national deficit. The clash then escalated with threats coming from both sides: Trump threatened to cancel government contracts with Musk's companies, and the CEO fired back by saying he'd shut down SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft before reneging. During Musk's fight with Trump on Thursday, Tesla's stock dipped 14%, wiping out $138 billion from the company's market cap. The company recovered some of the losses the following day. Yet the CEO saw one of his biggest single-day hits to his net worth with an estimated $34 billion loss. Still, some analysts say this storm will pass. "Musk's and Trump's relationship has an impact on the stock and maybe investor sentiment, but as far as the actual business impact for Tesla, I never thought Trump getting elected was positive or that negative for Tesla," Seth Goldstein, Morningstar analyst, told Business Insider. "So with the feud that started between Trump and Musk, I never really viewed that as that positive or negative for Tesla either." While it may not be helpful to no longer be in Trump's good graces, Goldstein said the president has already made clear that he would cut EV subsidies, which the analyst viewed as having the most negative impact not just on Tesla but on all EV makers. Gene Munster, Tesla investor and managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, estimated in a Friday report that the elimination of the tax credits could reduce 2025 deliveries by 15%. As far as Tesla's June robotaxi launch in Austin goes, which Musk says will unlock trillions of dollars of market value for his company, analysts say there's little reason to believe the administration would want to hinder progress there. "In my view, the White House has little to gain in standing in front of autonomy, given autonomy is central to physical AI, and for the US to be a leader globally in AI, it also needs to be a leader in physical AI," Munster said in his Friday report. "The bottom line, I expect cooler heads to prevail and the Federal Government will continue to support the growth of these services." Goldstein told BI that he doesn't see many avenues the administration could take to hinder Tesla's robotaxi progress. He said the Department of Transportation is reviewing federal standards for autonomous vehicle safety. "In theory, if Trump wanted to see Musk face retaliation and target Tesla, they could, say, require autonomous vehicles to have lidar in order to be approved by the federal government for operation, but I don't think they're going to get that detailed," Goldstein said. "I think that Trump could more easily just target SpaceX by just cutting their contracts if he really wanted to hurt Elon, versus making some really weird, nuanced policy." Spokespeople for the DOT and the White House did not respond to a request for comment. In a note on Friday, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote that Musk's feud with Trump doesn't impact the "longer-term vectors that drive the stock's value." "AI leadership, autonomy/robotics, manufacturing, supply chain re-architecture, renewable power, critical infrastructure... Tesla still holds so many valuable cards that are largely apolitical, in our opinion," Jonas wrote. By late Friday afternoon, the online jabs had slowed down, but the Trump-Musk alliance remained on ice. The president told NBC News on Saturday that he doesn't expect to mend his relationship with Musk and warned the CEO against supporting Democratic candidates. Still, during a press gaggle on Air Force One on Friday, Trump said he hadn't thought about Musk but wished him and his company well. "I mean, I hope he does well with Tesla," Trump said. A spokesperson for Tesla did not respond to a request for comment. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Aldi summer price cuts: Up to 33% off 400+ items
Aldi is renewing what has become an annual summer tradition: cutting prices on hundreds of seasonal products. The Germany-based discount grocery chain said it will be reducing prices on nearly 25% of its products – more than 400 items including meat and produce – at its more than 2,400 stores. Prices will be reduced as much as 33% on the 400+ products over the summer, Aldi chief commercial officer Scott Patton told USA TODAY. Nearly one in four households shop at Aldi stores, he said, citing Circana data. Aldi's move comes as about two-thirds of Americans (67%) said they remained very concerned about food and consumer goods prices, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 3,589 adults in April. "Summer's for grilling out, camping, concerts, and quality time with friends and family – not stressing over grocery bills," he said. "That's why we decided to offer even lower prices on ALDI favorites all summer long. Our unique business model with smaller store footprints, 90% private brands and strong supplier partnerships means we can deliver real savings where other grocers can't." Starbucks: Upcoming coffee competition draws top baristas for latte art, blind tasting challenges Aldi, which plans to open 225 more stores in the U.S. this year, said its price cuts – kicking in June 5 through Labor Day – will likely save shoppers about $100 million – similar to the amount of money shoppers collectively saved with its reductions last year and more than the $60 million saved in 2023. "Last year's shopper response was overwhelming. Our customers loved it because they could stock up on summer staples without stretching their budgets," Patton said. "Aldi has always been known for quality at low prices, and when we can deliver even more savings for our shoppers, we do." Clancy's: Chili Lime Potato Chips - was $1.89, is now $1.79. Friendly Farms: 2% Ultra-Filtered Milk – was $4.39, is now $3.89. Millville: Protein Pancake Mix – was $3.79, is now $3.49. Mama Cozzi's: Mini Pizza Bagels – was $6.29, is now $5.99. Summit: Popz Prebiotic Soda - was $1.59, is now $1.49. Mike Snider is a reporter on USA TODAY's Trending team. You can follow him on Threads, Bluesky, X and email him at mikegsnider & @ & @mikesnider & msnider@ What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Aldi summer price cuts: Up to 33% off 400+ items
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's dysfunctional government can learn from these Republican governors
President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are struggling to do their jobs because they are losing focus on what they were elected to do. They are creating political sideshows and distractions from the issues that truly matter to Americans, and the issues that voters wanted Trump to fix. Instead of fixing the economy, for example, Trump is locked in a social media battle with Elon Musk. Why? Republicans in control of the federal government should take a note from popular GOP governors who are delivering on what voters actually want without all of the noise that is engulfing the presidency and Congress. Opinion: Musk is angry Trump used him. I'm frustrated we're focusing on the wrong thing. Trump has made progress on securing the border, despite his deportation struggles, but the economy is where he struggles. His unpredictable and ill-advised tariff policy has investors worried, and his administration is pushing a bill that would raise the country's deficit. The old adage 'it's the economy, stupid' rings true even today. If Trump cannot handle the basics of the job, then Americans are unlikely to give him leeway on other issues. In contrast, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is more popular than Trump in the Sunshine State and is overseeing a strong economic run while presiding over a strong public school system. Florida's job growth is outpacing the national average. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is another example. He enjoys extraordinarily high approval ratings, even though Trump had a narrow victory in the state in 2024. He's done so on the back of good job creation marks and, again, a strong public school system. These are two Republican governors doing the job we need the federal GOP to do, instead of the bickering we're seeing unfold on social media. This isn't to say that either of those two governors don't take swings in the culture war. DeSantis is probably best known for his actions against Disney and other social debates. Kemp also has a history of fighting "woke" and dabbling in the culture wars. But in surrounding themselves with competent allies and running the government well, voters give them a longer leash. The lesson here for Trump is to take care of the basic issues that impact voters, then he can get bogged down in his culture war stances. Both Kemp and DeSantis have gotten away with their antics because they are competent executives. Opinion: There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. In state governments, this includes going to the DMV, the quality of public schools and paying taxes. If these types of experiences are painless, people have a more positive view of the government. Federally, this is reflected in the economy, as people's daily lives are most significantly impacted by the state of the economy. Culture war issues matter at the margins, but people broadly vote based on the economy. Because Trump is struggling with the economy, his actions in other areas are a glaring distraction. He could stand to ask governors like DeSantis and Kemp about how to lead along conservative principles without all the mess and failure. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Kemp, DeSantis show Trump how Republicans should govern | Opinion