Episode 576 Show Notes- The Department of Government Efficiency and Trump’s Cabinet Picks

↓ The P.A.S. Report Podcast is on every podcast platform! ↓

Episode Description

In this episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, Professor Nick Giordano examines Donald Trump’s cabinet picks and his announcement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. DOGE aims to tackle the federal government’s rampant waste, fraud, and abuse, including the Department of Defense’s failure to pass seven consecutive audits. Professor Giordano explores how this initiative could function, the role Congress will play, and whether DOGE will succeed where past commissions have failed. Can this bold reform bring accountability to Washington, or will bureaucratic resistance stand in its way?

Episode Highlights:

Analysis of Trump’s cabinet picks and the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency.
The Pentagon’s audit failures, wasteful spending, and Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks’s dismissive response.
How DOGE’s success hinges on Congressional cooperation and what makes it different from past reform efforts.

Be sure to subscribe and tune in to stay informed on the critical issues affecting America!

Click play above to listen to the entire episode or you can listen on any podcast platform

Show Notes- The Department of Government Efficiency and Trump’s Cabinet Picks

Welcome to The P.A.S. Report Podcast

[Intro Transcript] Welcome to another episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast. I’m your host, Nick Giordano, and I am glad you could join me today. If you’re not already a subscriber, consider subscribing and following the podcast so you never miss an episode. Also, visit The P.A.S. Report website, and share this episode with others to inform them of the issues impacting our great nation.

Before I jump into today’s episode, I just want to take a moment and thank all the Veterans for their service to this great nation on this Veteran’s Day. We owe you a debt of gratitude that can never fully be repaid, and it’s because of heroes like you that we have the privilege of living in a free society. Thank you for your selflessness and know that your commitment to this nation will never be forgotten.

Biden, Trump, and Russia

A lot is going on as a second Trump administration gets set to take office on January 20^th, 2025. He’s been announcing some appointments, and in this episode, I will go through some of the picks and give my thoughts on them.

However the main focus of this episode will be on the concept of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) because it is a topic that I’ve focused on before, and there is so much at stake given the fiscal recklessness of our government. We have a ballooning $36 trillion debt, and this debt is growing rapidly as our government and our officials, both elected and appointed, have proven time and time again that they have no regard for how they spend our money.

But one thing is certain, the path we are on is unsustainable and we are bankrupting our future. So I will cover the idea behind the Department of Government Efficiency. How the Department is expected to operate, what role Congress will need to play since the president cannot implement this unilaterally, and the challenges it will face in tackling the entrenched waste, fraud, and abuse within our government.

While this initiative is critical, past initiatives have fallen short. So, one of the main questions will be how this is any different than previous efforts that failed to reign in an out-of-control government that thrives on inefficiency and waste. To succeed, this advisory commission will need to overcome significant obstacles, including resistance from entrenched bureaucrats, special interest groups, lobbyists, and politicians who line their pockets and benefit from the status quo.

When we look deeper, we have to understand that there is very little incentive for those in power to embrace any meaningful reform because they don’t care. It’s not their money and they know that accountability does not exist in Washington, DC.

However, what we cannot afford is another well-intentioned effort that fails to deliver real results.

Now, before I jump into today’s topic, I briefly want to discuss the Biden administration’s announcement that they have authorized Ukraine to use American long-range missiles to strike deep inside Russia. This appears to be a dangerous escalation, and it certainly is interesting timing. For the last year, the Biden administration has been wrestling with the decision of whether or not to green-light Ukraine and allow them to use American missiles to strike inside Russia.

This policy shift comes after months of internal debate, with some officials advocating that such measures are essential for Ukraine to counter Russian advances, while others warned of the potential for a broader conflict that could entangle the United States. The timing of this decision is particularly noteworthy, as it occurs just two months before President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office.

For over a year, President Biden has been indecisive on this. All of a sudden, he makes this decision two months before he leaves office. Really? Is he trying to tie President Trump’s hands once he gets into office? For a President who has two months in office left, this is absolutely insane. You don’t make such consequential policy decisions as your leaving office, but if we examine it from a surface level, it certainly seems like a move intended to undermine the incoming Trump administration.

However, there may be another way of looking at this. Sometimes, things aren’t as obvious as they appear to be, especially when it comes to international politics. Now, I don’t have evidence for what I am about to say, but I know the dynamics of international politics on the world stage.

Everyone knows that President Trump is going to try and end this conflict once he gets into office. It is also not a coincidence that the President-elect met with the current President on Thursday of last week. I would think this issue came up during their meeting, and perhaps, this is more of a good cop, bad cop situation.

Maybe it’s about leverage heading into any talks. What do I mean by that? Right now, Russia has the upper hand. They are the stronger more dominant military and they have been making advancements on the battlefield pushing the Ukrainian forces back in the Eastern regions. Ukrainian forces took control of the Russian city of Kursk. Now, Russian and North Korean forces are attempting to take Kursk back.

Biden is still the President and there is zero dialogue between the Biden administration and the Russians. They don’t have a relationship. On the other hand, Putin believes that he can negotiate and work with Trump. He also knows Trump is unpredictable and therefore he has to be careful in how far he pushes.

If Russia is successful in liberating Kursk from Ukrainian forces, Russia would have all the leverage in any kind of talks.

However, if Ukraine can use long-range missiles to strike Russia, forcing Russia to go into a defensive posture, and this allows Ukraine to maintain control of Kursk, then they will at least have some leverage in any type of negotiations.

The logic would be that Biden authorizes Ukraine to strike inside Russia. Putin, knowing that Biden will be leaving office in two months chooses not to escalate based on his belief that he can work with the Trump administration. When Trump gets into office, he forces a settlement on both Ukraine and Russia.

The way I envision any deal is that Ukraine will officially cede any claims to the Crimea, and the Crimea will be recognized as Russian territory. Ukraine signs a pledge that they will not seek to join NATO. However, they will be able to seek security and defense guarantees from other nations including the U.S. Ukraine will withdraw from the city of Kursk, and Russia will withdraw from the Eastern provinces of Ukraine. While Ukraine will retain this territory, the eastern provinces will probably get some limited autonomy.

Again, this is just me speculating, but it would make sense. In any event, we need to take a quick break. So, hang tight and we will be right back.

Break

President Trump’s Cabinet Picks

Welcome back to The P.A.S. Report Podcast. I want to give some thoughts on Trump’s cabinet picks, as well as his picks for other positions outside the cabinet. I’m not going to go through every pick, just some key ones that or ones that are generating controversy.

Susie Wiles as chief of staff seems like a great pick. I don’t know much about her, but from what others have said about her, she is someone who wants to get things done. She doesn’t have any ambitions or motivations, and she likes to remain out of the spotlight. That’s what you want in a chief of staff. You want them to work behind the scenes as the bridge to other personnel and Congress to push the President’s agenda forward.

You have Marco Rubio for Secretary of State. He will sail through the nomination process. He is someone who speaks well, is tough, and has been one of the very few who is an outspoken critic of Communist China and its intent and ambitions.

NY Congresswoman Elise Stefanik as UN Ambassador. I am not crazy about this pick. Not because I don’t think Congresswoman Stefanik is capable. She certainly is and that’s why I prefer her to stay in the House. She is capable, and we are already working with slim margins in the House. Also, now Governor Hochul gets to set a special election. While Stefanik’s area is red, special elections always get me nervous because you never really predict who is going to be able to turn out more of their base, and I can assure you that Democrats will spend tens of millions to potentially over $100 million to flip this seat.

The Border Czar is Tom Homan. You couldn’t ask for a better pick. Tom Homan is a no-nonsense guy who understands the importance of the mission. He is competent, capable, and knows how to secure the border.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe is an excellent pick. He is someone who understands how our intelligence community has been ideologically weaponized. He has firsthand experience with the politicization of intelligence and has consistently advocated to restore integrity and objectivity within the intelligence community. Ratcliffe’s leadership will be pivotal in dismantling the entrenched culture of bias. The CIA must operate with a singular focus on protecting American interests rather than advancing political agendas and spying on the American people. His appointment signals a clear commitment to reforming an agency that has faced mounting criticism for prioritizing ideology and DEI over actionable intelligence and competency.

There is talk of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya as NIH director. That would be a phenomenal pick. He was an outspoken critic of lord Fauci and the government’s response to the pandemic. More importantly, he was one of the coauthors of the Great Barrington Declaration. It turns out he was right, and many of the so-called experts were wrong. He is a believer in real science. Not the pseudo-science pushed by the elites.

Now, to some of the more controversial picks, we will start with Kristi Noem as DHS secretary. Many are scratching their heads over this choice, and while the “dog incident” doesn’t help her image, I’m focusing solely on her qualifications. A cabinet secretary is an administrator, and as Governor, Noem has proven she can run a state as its chief executive. She oversees state police, the National Guard, public works, transportation, and more. By comparison, she’s far more qualified than Pete Buttigieg was when he became Transportation Secretary, having only been the mayor of a small town. Anyone claiming Noem isn’t qualified is simply ignoring the facts.

There is a lot of controversy brewing over Robert F. Kennedy Jr. being appointed as Secretary of Health and Human Services. While I disagree with RFK Jr. on a whole host of issues because he is far-left on a lot of issues, I agree with him on two fundamental issues. One is censorship. RFK Jr. is an outspoken critic of government censorship and he passionately defends free speech. Given how multiple agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services worked to silence and censor millions of Americans, I think it is important that whoever heads up this Department understands and appreciates the American people’s right to speak freely.

Secondly, our healthcare system is broken. We are an extremely unhealthy nation, and much of this stems from a system designed to maintain chronic conditions rather than cure them. It’s a system driven by profits, where special interest groups and lobbyists ensure the status quo remains intact. The pharmaceutical industry thrives on recurring prescriptions instead of promoting true wellness, while the food industry floods our supermarkets with processed products laden with harmful additives, preservatives, and chemicals.

What’s even more alarming is the double standard: many of the same food companies sell products overseas that are far more nutritious, and they contain fewer ingredients and chemicals than those sold in the United States. This isn’t just about individual choices. The truth is we don’t have a choice. We are stuck with the products that they sell here and it’s time to hold these industries accountable. We should demand higher standards to protect the health and well-being of Americans. If we want to reverse the alarming trends in obesity, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses, we must start by removing the poisons from our food and creating a healthcare system that values prevention and cures over simply taking pills every day for the rest of your life just to maintain unhealthiness.

Some accuse RFK Jr. of being a science denier. Remember, these are the same frauds that cannot define what a woman is, and believe men get pregnant so spare me.

Now to Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense – a pick critics claim is unqualified because he’s a Fox News host. But let’s get real. Hegseth graduated from Princeton, earned an advanced degree from Harvard, and chose service over wealth, leaving Bear Stearns to spend nearly 20 years in the National Guard, including multiple combat deployments. He’s also been a tireless advocate for veterans.

The Pentagon has been broken for decades, plagued by leadership that prioritizes box-checking over merit and competency. Civilian control of the military exists for a reason, and frankly, our generals haven’t exactly excelled. Look at Afghanistan, where lies about progress left the Taliban better armed than before 9/11. Or Iraq, where Iran’s influence has only grown. Many of the same generals who oversaw these failures misled the public about stability and success, eroding trust in military leadership.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has been weaponized with vaccine mandates and divisive ideologies like Milley’s focus on “white rage.” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin even smeared the military by commissioning an investigation into racism among soldiers – only for the final report to show no real issue, a finding they quietly buried. Hegseth’s leadership offers the shakeup the Pentagon desperately needs to restore accountability and prioritize readiness over politics.

Then you have Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. The Democratic machine has unleashed a torrent of criticism, once again resorting to the tired and baseless smear of labeling her a “Russian asset.” This isn’t about her qualifications or policies – it’s about her refusal to blindly adhere to the Democratic Party’s narrative. Tulsi has consistently called for a more restrained foreign policy and has advocated against the United States engaging in unnecessary wars, which flies in the face of the interventionist mindset embraced by many in Washington.

Let’s be clear: I don’t see eye-to-eye with Tulsi Gabbard on several issues. As a conservative, I recognize that she holds liberal views on a number of policies. But disagreement is not a disqualification. What’s disgraceful is how her critics are resorting to character assassination rather than addressing the real problems she seeks to confront. Our intelligence community has been deeply corrupted by entrenched bureaucrats who have weaponized it for political purposes, eroding public trust in the process. Tulsi’s appointment represents an opportunity to clean house and restore integrity to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Her critics should focus less on groundless accusations and more on how she plans to tackle the serious challenges facing our intelligence community. This is about ensuring that the intelligence apparatus serves the American people, not partisan interests or the agendas of unelected bureaucrats. It’s time to move past the politics of personal destruction and address the systemic issues that have compromised the effectiveness and credibility of our intelligence agencies.

The Matt Gaetz pick for Attorney General is by far the most controversial of Trump’s choices and faces the biggest challenge in Senate confirmation. To be honest, I don’t get this pick. I understand Trump’s desire for someone he can trust to clean house at the DOJ, which has been severely corrupted in recent years. After all, Trump was burned by past Attorney Generals—Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, paving the way for the Mueller Special Counsel, and Bill Barr often failed to deliver.

Gaetz is undeniably a fighter. His performances in congressional hearings show his ability to ask tough questions and hold officials accountable. However, he’s deeply divisive, disliked by both Democrats and Republicans and brings significant baggage. You have a damaging House ethics report, and while it hasn’t been leaked yet, it’s only a matter of time before one of Gaetz’s enemies drops it to the press.

Let’s face it, Trump doesn’t need the controversy that Gaetz may bring and this can ultimately serve as a distraction. If I were advising the President, I would have encouraged a more strategic pick like Senator Ted Cruz, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, or Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey. Anyone of them would be a solid choice with the experience, credentials, and conservative bona fides necessary to lead the Department of Justice and tackle its deep-seated corruption. These individuals not only have a proven track record of challenging federal overreach but also possess the political savviness to navigate the DOJ. Unlike Gaetz, they would bring less baggage to the position and allow Trump to focus on advancing his broader agenda without being bogged down by unnecessary controversies.

Ultimately, the Attorney General has a pivotal role that demands both integrity and credibility. While Gaetz’s combative style might appeal to some, the risks far outweigh the rewards in my opinion. The DOJ needs a leader who can restore public trust while aggressively rooting out the corruption and bias we have witnessed over the last several years. Cruz, Paxton, or Bailey could accomplish this without becoming a lightning rod for criticism, allowing the administration to pursue much-needed reforms without the constant distraction of political drama.

Alright, everyone, we are going to take a quick break. When we get back I want to discuss the Department of Government Efficiency. So everyone, hang tight and we will be right back.

Break

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Welcome back to The P.A.S. Report Podcast. Now I want to turn your attention to Trump’s announcement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) headed up by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. These are two brilliant and very capable individuals who know how to manage things. They understand the importance of efficiency and effectiveness.

While the name might raise eyebrows, DOGE could represent a fundamental shift in how the federal government operates. Let’s break down what this initiative is, how it’s supposed to work, and whether it can succeed where others have failed.

First, let’s address how the Department of Government Efficiency will work. Despite its name, DOGE is not an actual executive department. Instead, it’s an advisory body that will be tasked with identifying inefficiencies, dismantling bureaucracy, and cutting wasteful expenditures. Musk and Ramaswamy will collaborate with the Office of Management and Budget to target fraud and abuse in government spending. Their goal is ambitious: Musk believes they can slash $2 trillion from the federal budget, reducing the number of federal agencies from over 400 to just 99. This isn’t just about trimming the fat. It’s about reshaping how the government operates.

And then there is the fact that we don’t even know how big our government really is. We don’t know how many federal entities exist within our government. The GAO was tasked with finding out and here is what they reported, “We identified 219 federally created entities… however, we cannot conclude that we have identified all federally created entities.” In fact, according to their report, they admit they excluded several federal entities.

“We excluded legislative and judicial branch organizations, organizations established under treaties or regional compacts, and geographical federal political jurisdictions. We also excluded federal organizations composed of more than one existing federally created entity and federal advisory organizations. In addition, we omitted many federally chartered corporations. We excluded entities that were created by entities that we identified as other federally established organizations. We also excluded organizations established to carry out authorized covert intelligence or law enforcement activities.”

Now, what role will Congress play in this? The President cannot unilaterally implement many of the recommendations. While the advisory body itself doesn’t require Congressional approval, any significant restructuring of agencies or funding cuts would need legislative action. Congress holds the power of the purse and has a vested interest in government spending. This means success will depend on whether Trump can rally enough support in Congress to pass the necessary reforms. Without Congressional buy-in, many of its recommendations could remain theoretical.

Will departments and agencies cooperate? That’s a big question. Bureaucracies are notoriously resistant to change, especially when it threatens their budgets or personnel. Resistance is inevitable, but with Musk and Ramaswamy at the helm, there’s hope that their no-nonsense approach and outside perspective may be able to overcome entrenched interests.

Finally, how is the Department of Government Efficiency different from past commissions or agencies like the Government Accountability Office (GAO)? Unlike the GAO, which audits and reports on waste, DOGE is meant to take bold action by dismantling entire agencies and slashing federal payrolls. Past efforts often lacked teeth, producing reports that went nowhere. DOGE, by contrast, is designed to drive real structural change.

Ultimately, the Department of Government Efficiency is an ambitious idea, but its success is essential to the future fiscal health of the United States. If implemented effectively, it could reshape the federal government and address the fiscal recklessness that’s burdening future generations. Whether it can overcome the inertia of bureaucracy and politics, however, remains to be seen.

We need to take a quick break but when we get back, I want to discuss how the Department of Government Efficiency succeeds.

Break

How the Department of Government Efficiency Succeeds

Welcome back to The P.A.S. Report. There are a lot of naysayers out there who are trying to shut down the idea of the Department of Government Efficiency. They want to see it fail. I am tired of people defending the bureaucracy. I am tired of the people who claim that wasteful spending is only a fraction of the spending or that it would be too expensive to tackle the fraud and abuse. I am sick of those who claim that if you reduce the size and scope of government it would lead to an economic catastrophe. And I am sick of those who say it’s an impossible task that will never succeed. So, is the answer we just do nothing?

Let’s examine some of the most egregious examples of wasteful spending in recent years:

$3 million to fund a study where hamsters were injected with steroids and researchers observed them fight.
$2.3 million to inject dogs with cocaine.
$3 million for “girl-centered climate action” in Brazil.
$288,563 to create diverse bird-watching groups.
$3.3 billion on office furniture since 2021.
$45 million for diversity and inclusion scholarships in Burma.
$1 million spent by DHS to train employees to be their “authentic and best selves.”
$1.2 million to get monkeys to drink alcohol excessively to study its effects on their long-term body tissue.
$200 million to famous music artists for their small businesses, including Post Malone, Lil Wayne, Chris Brown, Nickelback, and Smashing Pumpkins.
$100,000 for a celebrity chef fruit promotion in Indonesia.
$1 million to study where it hurts the most to get stung by a bee.
Over $477,000 by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to study the effects of female hormones on male monkeys concerning HIV.
$800,000 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of Japanese quail.

This is just a drop in the bucket. I can spend an entire episode providing example after example of wasteful spending. Is this how you want your tax dollars spent? Are you okay with this?

And the problem extends well beyond wasteful projects. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has estimated that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud.

That’s insane and the dollar amount is probably far higher. And there are going to be people out there who argue with me about the urgent need for reform and to prosecute any individual committing fraud.

This perfectly illustrates how out of control the problem is.

One potential solution I hope to see is to relocate some federal departments and agencies out of Washington, D.C. This move could disrupt entrenched bureaucracies and reduce the influence of ideologically driven officials. Think about all those far-left ideologues who will quit because they don’t want to live in Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, or any other state outside the coasts and the DC Bubble.

By dispersing agencies across the country, you reduce the ideological corruption that plagues them, leading to more effective, efficient, and accountable governance.

Own Your FREEDOM, Your HEALTH, Your WELLNESS

Peace of mind in a box - keep a Medical Emergency Kit in your medicine cabinet

Get 10% off your order Use code PAS at checkout

And I will talk about that more in future episodes. For now, if you found the content of this episode informative, please leave The P.A.S. Report Podcast a five star rating and take 30-seconds to leave a good review. Also, share the episode with family and friends to take the podcast to the next level.

In the meantime, I want to thank you for joining me and I will be back next week with more great episodes of The P.A.S. Report Podcast.

To listen to the full episode, click play above or visit your favorite podcast platform!

Click here to read Professor Giordano’s latest piece at Campus Reform

David Harsanyi and Blue Anon

The P.A.S. Report wants to hear from you. Send your feedback to podcast@pasreport.com. Please leave a 5-star rating and write a review on Apple Podcast.

Please share this episode with others & on social media.

*PA Strategies, LLC. may earn advertising revenue or a small commission for promoting products or when you purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.

Follow Nicholas Giordano