Forget Musk. Russ Vought is the real power behind Trump
While Elon Musk has clearly been a major influence on the Trump administration, the less well-known, but arguably more influential, power behind the presidency is Russell (usually Russ) Vought. Vought is the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – the nerve center of the administration's sweeping changes.
Vought is also rumoured to be about to take over running the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from Musk.
Unlike Musk, Vought acts mostly outside the media spotlight. He is fully committed to a radical overhaul of the way the US presidency works – and his deep religious convictions have led him to believe there should be more Christianity embedded in government and public life.
He has vowed to 'be the person that crushes the Deep State', and was part of the first Trump administration, where he held the position of OMB deputy director – and, briefly, director.
Vought worked with Trump in his first term on Executive Order 13957, which aimed to reclassify thousands of policy jobs within the federal government. This was designed to allow the White House to quickly change who was employed in these roles.
This was subsequently revoked by the Biden administration. But Trump issued a similar executive order 14171 in January, which will implement quicker hiring and firing procedures. The Office of Personnel Management estimates that this could affect 50,000 federal roles.
In an interview with conservative commentator and podcaster Tucker Carlson, Vought said that this was necessary for the White House to 'retain control' of the agencies under its command.
Without it, he claimed, ideological 'opponents' within the agencies had the power to diminish the efficiency of White House initiatives. And his role as head of the OMB, he argued, was 'to tame the bureaucracy, the administrative state.'
During the Biden presidency, Vought was one of the main authors – credited as the key architect – of the Heritage Foundation's influential Project 2025, widely seen as the blueprint for Trump's second term of office.
The 900-page document, whose full title is Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, was a major talking point during last year's presidential election campaign.
Throughout the campaign, Trump strenuously denied Democrat accusations of having any connection to Project 2025. But a large number of his appointees contributed to the Heritage Foundation's publication, and numerous Project 2025's recommendations have quickly been put into action.
These include Trump's high trade tariffs and DOGE's cost-cutting initiatives. Russ Vought talking to Tucker Carlson.
During his confirmation hearing in the US Senate, Vought reiterated his belief that the White House has authority over federal spending, not Congress. This contradicts Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, which grants Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare of the country.
For the majority of constitutional experts, the executive (the president) may propose a budget, but it is Congress that authorizes it.
Concerned by this, Democrats on the Senate budget committee attempted a boycott of Vought's confirmation vote, which failed when all 11 Republican members voted in favor. And when the call came on the Senate floor to confirm his appointment, all 47 Democratic senators held an all-night debate in protest.
Democrat and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer has called Vought the 'most radical nominee' with 'the most extreme agenda' and said that Americans needed to understand the danger he poses to them in their daily lives.
When asked to compare the Trump administration's policies to Project 2025, Paul Dans, who was the director of Project 2025 until he stepped down during the Trump campaign, said that the administration's policies were 'beyond my wildest dreams.'
According to one website tracking the agenda, of the 313 suggested policy objectives in Project 2025, 101 have been implemented, while another 64 are in progress.
A significant number of Project 2025's recommendations have been implemented by the Elon Musk-led DOGE. And Vought has been described by one journalist as 'the glue between Musk and the Republicans.'
Vought and Musk have forged a strange but effective relationship in executing DOGE's cost-cutting initiatives. According to reports quoting former Trump administration officials, Musk's DOGE has used data to identify what he considers to be overspending, while Vought's OMB has confirmed DOGE's findings, recommending how to deal with them.
'What's needed is a specific theory about the case and what can be done,' Vought said. It was part of an effort to help the government 'balance its books', he added.
When asked by Tucker Carlson what he thought of DOGE, Vought replied: 'I think they're bringing an exhilarating rush … of creativity, outside-the-box thinking, comfortability with risk and leverage.'
The process to crush the so-called 'Deep State' conducted by MAGA Republicans in Congress and DOGE in the White House has been expertly coordinated by Vought.
As one reporter wrote, he has experience working on Capitol Hill and is on good terms with the Freedom Caucus, which is the group of conservative Republicans that advocates for limited government, fiscal restraint and strict adherence to a constitutional, right-wing agenda.
After the caucus was instrumental in defining the terms of support for Mike McCarthy as Speaker of the House in 2023, Vought called the members of Freedom House 'the lions that have been through battle and won.' He knows the capabilities of the OMB – and is just as anti-establishment as Musk.
According to independent researchers tracking Project 2025, a number of departments still have more than half of the project's objectives to be completed. The administration will need to work quickly, however.
Historically, the party that occupies the White House fares badly in the midterms. The Republicans could lose control of the House or the Senate, both of which they currently control. Should this happen, the administration may find it more difficult to implement the changes they wish.
But it is highly unlikely that this will deter Vought and his drive for reforms of presidential powers. He, along with the majority of the Trump White House, believes in the unitary executive theory.
This essentially argues that the president has control over all executive branch officials and operations, and that Congress cannot limit that control, even through legislation.
If Vought does carry on and Congress challenges his decisions, the issue could end up in the Supreme Court – a court dominated by Trump appointees. Any judgment made by the court would be seismic in its importance of future interpretations of the constitution and where power really lies in the federal government.
For Vought and other Project 2025 authors in the administration, a ruling in their favor would be vindication of their work.
Dafydd Townley is teaching fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
9 hours ago
- Asia Times
Trump's Golden Dome will make US – and world
President Donald Trump's idea of a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system carries a range of potential strategic dangers for the United States. Golden Dome is meant to protect the US from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space. Trump has called for the missile defense to be fully operational before the end of his term in three years. Trump's goals for Golden Dome are likely beyond reach. A wide range of studies makes clear that even defenses far more limited than what Trump envisions would be far more expensive and less effective than Trump expects, especially against enemy missiles equipped with modern countermeasures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads and warheads that can maneuver or are difficult to track, among others. Regardless of Golden Dome's feasibility, there is a long history of scholarship about strategic missile defenses, and the weight of evidence points to the defenses making their host country less safe from nuclear attack. I'm a national security and foreign policy professor at Harvard University, where I lead 'Managing the Atom,' the university's main research group on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies. For decades, I've been participating in dialogues with Russian and Chinese nuclear experts – and their fears about US missile defenses have been a consistent theme throughout. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that Golden Dome is destabilizing. Along with US offensive capabilities, Golden Dome poses a threat of 'directly undermining global strategic stability, spurring an arms race and increasing conflict potential both among nuclear-weapon states and in the international arena as a whole,' a joint statement from China and Russia said. While that is a propaganda statement, it reflects real concerns broadly held in both countries. Golden Dome explained. Experience going back half a century makes clear that if the administration pursues Golden Dome, it is likely to provoke even larger arms buildups, derail already-dim prospects for any negotiated nuclear arms restraint, and perhaps even increase the chances of nuclear war. My first book, 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the US national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited US and Soviet – and later Russian – missile defenses. The United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I, the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2. The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today. Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each side's defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race. If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks – 'don't nuke me, or I'll nuke you' – then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow – so the United States targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all. Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before. In addition, nations viewed an adversary's shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a country's nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack. That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous. Unfortunately, President George W Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, seeking to free US development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the US has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100). The US pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about US missile defenses and the US refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the US stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid US missile defenses, from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while US defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia. Russia maintains a large force of nuclear weapons like this mobile intercontinental ballistic missile. Photo: Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via APPEAR / The Conversation Similarly, much of China's nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the United States' capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder. Indeed, China was so angered by South Korea's deployment of US-provided regional defenses – which they saw as aiding the US ability to intercept their missiles – that they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea. Now, Trump wants to go much further, with a defense 'forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,' with a success rate 'very close to 100%.' I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Russia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to 'counter' defenses 'aimed at achieving military superiority.' Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the United States worse off than before – and a good bit poorer. Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch. Most countries are likely to oppose the idea of deploying huge numbers of weapons in space – and these interceptors would be both expensive and vulnerable. China and Russia could focus on further developing anti-satellite weapons to blow a hole in the defense, increasing the risk of space war. Already, there is a real danger that the whole effort of negotiated limits to temper nuclear arms racing may be coming to an end. The last remaining treaty limiting US and Russian nuclear forces, the New START Treaty, expires in February 2026. China's rapid nuclear buildup is making many defense officials and experts in Washington call for a US buildup in response. Intense hostility all around means that for now, neither Russia nor China is even willing to sit down to discuss nuclear restraints, in treaty form or otherwise. In my view, adding Golden Dome to this combustible mix would likely end any prospect of avoiding a future of unrestrained and unpredictable nuclear arms competition. But paths away from these dangers are available. It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection against attacks from a handful of missiles from North Korea or others that would not seriously threaten Russian or Chinese deterrent forces – and design restraints that would allow all parties to plan their offensive forces knowing what missile defenses they would be facing in the years to come. I believe that Trump should temper his Golden Dome ambitions to achieve his other dream – of negotiating a deal to reduce nuclear dangers. Matthew Bunn is professor of the practice of energy, national security and foreign policy, Harvard Kennedy School This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Thanks
RTHK
11 hours ago
- RTHK
Trump says Musk has 'lost his mind' amid feud
Trump says Musk has 'lost his mind' amid feud Trump says while his former ally Elon Musk has "lost his mind", he nevertheless wishes the billionaire well. Photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump said on Friday that Elon Musk had "lost his mind" but insisted he wanted to move on from the fiery split with his billionaire former ally. The blistering public break-up between the world's richest person and the world's most powerful is fraught with political and economic risks all round. Trump had scrapped the idea of a call with Musk and was even thinking of ditching the red Tesla he bought at the height of their bromance, White House officials told AFP. "Honestly I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran... I'm not thinking about Elon Musk, I just wish him well," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to his New Jersey golf club late on Friday. Earlier, Trump told US broadcasters that he now wanted to focus instead on passing his "big, beautiful" mega-bill before Congress – Musk's harsh criticism of which had sparked their break-up. But the 78-year-old Republican could not stop himself from taking aim at his South African-born friend-turned-enemy. "You mean the man who has lost his mind?" Trump said in a call with ABC when asked about Musk, adding that he was "not particularly" interested in talking to the tycoon. Trump later told Fox News that Musk had "lost it." Just a week ago Trump gave Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) after four months working there. While there had been reports of tensions, the sheer speed at which their relationship imploded stunned Washington. After Musk called Trump's spending bill an "abomination" on Tuesday, Trump hit back in an Oval Office diatribe on Thursday in which he said he was "very disappointed" by the entrepreneur. The row then went nuclear, with Musk slinging insults at Trump and accusing him without evidence of being in government files on disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump hit back with the power of the US government behind him, saying he could cancel the Space X boss's multi-billion-dollar rocket and satellite contracts. Trump struck a milder tone late Friday when asked how seriously he is considering cutting Musk's contracts. "It's a lot of money, it's a lot of subsidy, so we'll take a look – only if it's fair. Only if it's to be fair for him and the country," he said. Musk apparently also tried to de-escalate social media hostilities. The right-wing tech baron rowed back on a threat to scrap his company's Dragon spacecraft – vital for ferrying Nasa astronauts to and from the International Space Station. And on Friday the usually garrulous poster kept a low social media profile on his X social network. However, the White House denied reports that they would talk. (AFP)
South China Morning Post
11 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
US Supreme Court allows Doge to access sensitive Social Security data of millions of Americans
The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two victories on Friday in cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), including giving it access to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The justices also separately reined in orders seeking transparency at Doge, the team once led by billionaire Elon Musk. The court's conservative majority sided with the Trump administration in the first Supreme Court appeals involving Doge. The three liberal justices dissented in both cases. The Doge victories come amid a messy break-up between the president and the world's richest man that started shortly after Musk's departure from the White House and has included threats to cut government contracts and a call for the president to be impeached. The future of Doge's work isn't clear without Musk at the helm, but both men have previously said that it will continue its efforts. In one case, the high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that had restricted the team's access to the Social Security Administration (SSA) under federal privacy laws. 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA Doge Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in an unsigned order. Conservative lower-court judges have said there's no evidence at this point of Doge mishandling personal information.
