Radboud University
Donald Trump and Elon Musk are planning to dismantle large parts of the American civil services to cut on government expenses and degrees bureaucracy. The way they are proceeding seems unconstitutional and undemocratic. What should we think of these developments? Come and learn from political scientist Joep van Lit and philosopher of law Wout Cornelissen about the future of the American state of law.
Thursday 13 February 2025 | 12.30 – 13.15 hrs | Lecture Hall Complex, Radboud University | Radboud Reflects and VOX | See announcement
By Liesbeth Jansen | Photos by Sarah Danz
In a lecture hall at Radboud University, more than a hundred people decided to spend their lunch break at the Current Affairs Lecture about Trump, Musk and DOGE. Philosopher of law Wout Cornelissen and political scientist Joep van Lit were the speakers, philosopher Frank van Caspel chaired the meeting.
DOGE is an abbreviation of Department of Government Efficiency. The department is dismantling large parts of the government. The name is referring to a meme and cryptocurrency. It is not like other departments, and it’s not an official agency. It’s more like an external contractor. The aim of DOGE is to cut government spending and reduce waste and bureaucracy. Do they have a mandate? Everybody wants a smaller government, Van Lit argued, but Trump and Musk do it in a drastic way. Trump claims to have a mandate to do this, but that is disputed. The cutting they do right now goes against previous decisions and fundings that have already been paid out – and are now withdrawn. Moreover, the power of the purse resides with Congress. Cornelissen stated democracy implies the idea that elected representatives make decisions on behalf of the people. And Trump certainly is elected, but this is true for others too, who are allowing themselves to being sidelined. Van Lit explains that leaders in other countries, like Hungary, have also enlarged their executive power and sidelined parliament.
Cornelissen addressed Trump’s tactics: So much is happening at the same time, and that is not without purpose. Trump is scattering our attention, because scattered attention makes it hard to focus, and in order to act collectively you need to be able to focus. The other thing is instilling fear. Fear leads to paralysis and makes it difficult to think and act. This is no ordinary politics, this is reshaping reality. Van Lit elaborated on the role of Musk: There are two problems with Musk. First, he has no democratic mandate, no accountability. And secondly, there is a huge conflict of interests for Musk: his own companies are largely dependent on government spending, and he probably doesn’t want to see these cut. They say DOGE is transparent, but people who tried to identify DOGE employees online were banned from their X-accounts by Musk, who said this was a criminal offence.
Are we witnessing a constitutional crisis? Cornelissen responded by saying that the answer to this depends on what is meant by this term: substance-wise, some of Trump’s Executive Orders appear to go against the Constitution. For example, birthright citizenship, which determines that you are a US citizen if you are born in the US, is a constitutional right. Trump is trying to change that. Formally speaking, however, a constitutional crisis occurs when the different branches of government clash in a way that is irreparable. The question is: what will the Trump administration do? The judiciary has no real ability to ensure compliance with its verdicts. Van Lit added that this development has not reached the Supreme Court yet; some people say that it’s only a crisis when the court is involved. Maybe one can speak of a hidden constitutional crisis? Van Caspel asked. Hidden, because all branches are in the same pocket so no matter what the one says, the other will agree? The main problem, Van Lit said, is a crisis of norms. For example, you don’t call for violence against political opponents, and you execute restraint and forbearance. These norms are eroding, even if no laws have officially been broken. Elections in the US are free but not necessarily fair. Each vote does not necessarily carry the same weight, but that is not new and is a is just a consequence of the American electoral system and has been like this since the system’s conception.
Is there a difference between the first presidency of Trump and the current one? Cornelissen notes that when Trump got elected in 2016, it was a big shock, perhaps even for Trump himself. The first response was protest and action. Now, you see apathy; people don’t quite know what to do. There is a realization that the US is no longer the great democracy it was once widely believed to be. One the other hand, we tended to think in binary ways about democracy—either democracy, or fascism—and this is not helpful anymore. Now, with people like Musk more or less buying the elections or at least influencing it to a large extend, the US is starting to look more and more like an oligarchy, which is difficult to counter.
Many federal civil servants are being fired. What is their role? Van Lit argues that it is part of their duty to tell political leadership that something will not work or is unconstitutional. They are the first line of defense, even ahead of the judges. However, Trump thinks civil servants are there to do what he says. But civil servants are now starting to organize, and it will be interesting to keep an eye on that in the coming months.
Are Trump voters happy now? Van Lit said that Trump voters wanted a major reform and that is exactly what Trump’s message was all along. If they knew that this would be the impact, is hard to tell. Cornelissen added that some people are already feeling the impact, especially immigrants. And the transgender community too is being hit very hard, as their healthcare is being taken away. Other groups no doubt will be added to this list.
How will we in Europe feel the effects? We already do, Cornelissen responded: we have to earnestly think about what democracy is. Because Trump appears to be redefining democracy as we knew it, and we see the effects of this spilling over to the Netherlands already. Van Lit adds that Geert Wilders, for example, was saying last week he would like to have a similar power as Trump, using executive orders to make policy instead of having to go through parliament.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk are planning to dismantle large parts of the American civil services to cut on government expenses and degrees bureaucracy. The way they are proceeding seems unconstitutional and undemocratic. What should we think of these developments? Come and learn from political scientist Joep van Lit and philosopher of law Wout Cornelissen about the future of the American state of law.
Trump created DOGE in his first days as president, with tech giant Elon Musk at its head. The main task of this so-called Department of Government Efficiency is to reduce government spending. In addition, Musk and President Trump share the ideological desire to cut diversity out of the government. DOGE's mostly young tech engineers have already gained access to various governmental systems. This allows DOGE to limit payments that were previously approved by Congress. Moreover, there is no oversight of exactly what DOGE employees are doing in the systems, which creates serious cybersecurity and hacking risks.
DOGE is moving forward, but whether they are allowed to do what they are doing is questionable. DOGE is not an official part of the government and therefore, according to some, should not have access to official governmental programs at all. Several states have therefore filed lawsuits against Trump and DOGE. Can the rule of law withstand the violence Trump is inflicting by implementing DOGE? And are the capitalist superpowers now taking power in America?
Joep van Lit is a political scientist at Radboud University. He works within the field of empirical political science, and researches democratic backsliding and the defense of democracy.
Wout Cornelissen is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy of Law at Radboud University. He teaches courses on the philosophical question of (dis)obedience to the law, and on the philosophical foundations of migration law. He specializes in the political thought of Hannah Arendt
Subscribe to the English newsletter and be the first to know about new programming, the latest reviews, video's and more.