"But during the transition Ramaswamy and Musk increasingly disagreed about how to make the government more efficient."

"Ramaswamy, who had apparently come around to the fact that significant cuts would require an act of Congress, began meeting regularly with a small group of legislators. Musk mostly did not attend. A source close to doge told me that Musk seemed to regard members of Congress as irrelevant, sometimes referring to them as 'N.P.C.s,'—non-player characters—the often mute and nameless figures who populate the backgrounds of video games. Musk was more interested in cutting spending via the executive branch, and spoke often, according to the source close to doge, of a need to 'control the computers.' In meetings, Ramaswamy resorted to using metaphors from the tech world to emphasize the importance of deregulation, calling the government’s rules 'the matrix' and insisting that doge needed to rewrite its source code. Musk was unmoved...."

Writes Benjamin Wallace-Wells, in "What Did Elon Musk Accomplish at DOGE? Even before Musk fell out with Donald Trump, the agency’s projected savings had plummeted. But he nevertheless managed to inflict lasting damage to the federal government" (The New Yorker).

Uninvited from the picnic and wondering why things can't be more highbrow.

JUST IN - SENATOR RAND PAUL: "I've just been told that I've been uninvited from the [White House] picnic...every Democrat will be invited, every Republican invited, but I will be the only one disallowed. I just find this incredibly petty."pic.twitter.com/rXTIDuXIeq

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 11, 2025

"I'm a big boy and we can go have a picnic in another park, you know we can go to the mall but it's just really kind of sad that this is where we are.... I mean literally every Democrat is invited, every Republican is invited, and to to say that my family's no longer welcome kind of sad. Actually, my grandson has a Make America Great hat. My son and daughter-in-law, they like Donald Trump. I like Donald Trump, but when they want to act this way, it's where they begin to lose a lot of America who just wonders: Why does everything have to descend to this level? Why can't anything be more highbrow and more of a intellectual discussion where we have a disagreement but it doesn't have to descend to this?

UPDATE: Of course, Rand Paul is invited, says Trump at Truth Social:

Of course Senator Rand Paul and his beautiful wife and family are invited to the BIG White House Party tonight. He’s the toughest vote in the history of the U.S. Senate, but why wouldn’t he be? Besides, it gives me more time to get his Vote on the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, one of the greatest and most important pieces of legislation ever put before our Senators & Congressmen/women. It will help to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! I look forward to seeing Rand. The Party will be Great!

"House Democrats erupted into fury and profane invective Tuesday as Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) forced a vote on his rogue efforts to impeach President Trump...."

"The vote could be tough for many Democrats, who feel impeachment is politically foolish but are facing demands from their grassroots to mirror Trump's shock-and-awe tactics.... Thanedar took to the House floor Tuesday afternoon to notice his seven articles of impeachment as privileged, which forces the House to vote on them within two legislative days.... The measure accuses Trump of a litany of offenses, including abuse of power, corruption and 'tyranny,' mostly related to his consolidation of power and his personal finances.... 'This is the dumbest f***ing thing. Utterly selfish behavior,' said a... House Democrat.... Asked about suggestions that the effort is related to his primary, [Thanedar] said: 'It's too early — 15 months. I'm not worried about that. It's not about elections ... it's about doing the right thing.'"

From "Dems privately rage over 'utterly selfish' Trump impeachment vote" (Axios).

"We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court."

"We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act."

Said Mike Johnson, quoted in "Speaker Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as GOP ramps up attacks on judges/Republican lawmakers are setting their sights on the judiciary following court rulings that have halted Trump's agenda" (NBC News).

The Constitution gave Congress the power to create the lower federal courts, and that seems to imply that Congress can eliminate them. Obviously, it hasn't done that, and there are some arguments that maybe it can't un-create them at this point in the development of federal law, but when speaking about Congress's power over the federal courts, it's standard to refer to its power to completely eliminate the lower federal courts, and to use that power as a basis for inferring a power to cut them back in less drastic ways.

Asked what was the "best moment" of Trump's speech, 2 of the NYT's 9 opinion writers said it was Al Green disrupting the session.

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) getting rightly removed from President Trump’s speech really illustrates the demise of the Democrat Party.

They are out of ideas. They can’t offer anything positive for America so they try to ruin it.

Al Green needs to be censured and hopefully expelled. pic.twitter.com/CV15kVsz9x

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) March 5, 2025

I'm reading the NYT analysis of Trump's big speech: "'It Was 90-Plus Minutes of Bad Moments': 9 Opinion Writers on Trump’s Address to Congress."

From the "Best Moment" section of the article:

Binyamin Appelbaum Representative Al Green’s stand in defiance of a president who has governed in defiance of the law. Green’s civil disobedience was the behavior of a man who believes that Trump is a threat to American democracy. Why did he stand alone?...

Michelle Goldberg Green’s heckling. Democrats shouldn’t have shown up at all, but if they were going to be there, noisy protest made more sense than holding up dumb little paddles. There’s nothing dignified about quietly playing the foil to an autocratic thug gloating about stripping America for parts....

Meanwhile, at home, I was comparing the scene to January 6th. You don't like what's going on in the Capitol? Disrupt! Try to stop the proceedings!

"I mean, when you talk to these Republican lawmakers privately, they all understand a vote against something that Donald Trump really cares about is a vote to end your career."

"I mean, there's not that many people who are willing to end their career. So even though I know for a fact there are a whole bunch of Republicans who if it was a private secret vote, would vote against — en masse — many of these nominees that he's put up, they won't dare do it in a public setting under the gaze of Donald Trump. And there's actually something deeper that's happened in American politics that Trump has changed. A generation ago, if you were a member of Congress, you could kind of protect yourself and defend yourself by raising money and having coalitions and whatever. All of that has been obliterated by Donald Trump's monopoly on the attention landscape. And If you get in their cross hairs, it doesn't matter what kind of a war chest you have that will be squirted away in two days, you are finished, your career's done."

Said Jonathan Swan, on yesterday's episode of the NYT's "Daily" podcast, "Trump 2.0 Arrives in Force."

ADDED: I figure he said "squirted away" because it's the NYT and "pissed away" is considered dirty, but "squirted away" sounds dirtier. I had to laugh.

"The initial vote was 50-50, with three Republicans — Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — joining all 47 Democrats in voting no."

From "VP Vance breaks tie in the Senate to confirm Pete Hegseth as defense secretary/Three Republicans voted with every Democrat against Trump’s controversial pick to lead the Pentagon, forcing Vance to step in and put Hegseth over the top" (NBC News).

We're told "McConnell's vote was a stunning rebuke of Hegseth and Trump, whom the former Senate Republican leader has clashed with repeatedly over the years."

Headline for an unread column.

"What It Means That No Republican Is Acting on the Pete Hegseth Allegations."

The piece is by Bret Stephens, and I did not read it. I think the answer is obvious, I'm pretty sure Stephens will not give the obvious answer, and I am not bound by protocol to sit through this sermon.

"The Speaker of the House need not be a member of Congress... Nothing would disrupt the swamp more than electing Elon Musk... think about it ..."

"... nothing’s impossible. (not to mention the joy at seeing the collective establishment, aka ‘uniparty,’ lose their ever-lovin’ minds)."

Tweets Rand Paul.

It's probably a terrible idea but it's funny to think about it.

"And and when I talk to people close to President-elect Trump and people who work for him, people on the outside — allies — they already see this as a resounding success."

"You know, they will say, look, who knows, maybe more accusations will come out against Pete Hegseth. Maybe we end up losing four senators and he goes down. But even if that happens, they see this as a cautionary tale for Republicans. They are putting Republicans on notice that they're not going to tolerate dissent. They're not going to tolerate opposition to Donald Trump during his return to Washington. And by making such a fight of this, by publicly forcing these senators to bend the knee, they are creating a template for what we're likely to see next year. As Trump tries to pass legislation, as he inevitably does controversial things that will make some senators squeamish, the Trump team is sending out the message. Now, there will be a very steep cost if you go against Donald Trump."

Said Jonathan Swan at the end of today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, "Pete Hegseth Was Toast. The MAGA Swarm Came to His Rescue." 

The episode concentrates on the effort to win support from Senator Joni Ernst. You can listen to that. I won't summarize. I am blogging this because I want to say that when I heard the part quoted above, I thought: Sounds like "Master of the Senate." 

Makes me want to reread Robert A. Caro's great book about LBJ. (Commission earned.) 

I hope Trump gets his Robert A. Caro some day. 

"How GOP Senators Are Secretly Getting Ready to Surrender to Trump."

Headline at The New Republic. Article by Greg Sargent. Subheadline: "Trump wants to turn the FBI into something so draconian that the political press many not grasp it until it’s too late. And Republican senators are already giving themselves cover to go along with all of it."

Is it "surrender" if you're on his side?

I see I have an old tag "Trump's swamp draining." I'll use that for this. I created it in 2016 but never really used it in the first Trump administration.

"This article is based on interviews with nearly a dozen people who have direct knowledge of how and why Mr. Trump salvaged Mr. Hegseth’s bid, at least for now."

I'm reading "Power, Intimidation and the Resurrection of Trump’s Support for Hegseth/The president-elect became convinced that letting Pete Hegseth fail would set off a feeding frenzy among senators. What followed was a MAGA swarm that helped salvage his bid, at least for now," by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman in the NYT.

I'm giving you a free-access link so you can judge the quality of the sources, the likelihood of a senatorial "feeding frenzy," and the meaning of "MAGA swarm."

We're told that Pete Hegseth went "from dead man walking to a man with a real shot of being confirmed by the Senate" in what was "a test case of power and intimidation," where Trump demonstrated his "ability to summon an online swarm, even while spending minimal personal capital of his own."

"House GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced that she will chair a new oversight subcommittee in the next Congress that will work with..."

"... the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. House Oversight Chair James Comer 'intends to establish a new Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) for the 119th Congress,' a source familiar told CNN, confirming that Greene will chair the subcommittee.... The creation of the new subcommittee establishes a congressional arm to the broader effort by Trump and his allies to make significant cuts to the federal government. The subpanel will examine the salaries and status of members of the federal civil service and intergovernmental personnel among other oversight measures...."

CNN reports.

A quote from Greene: "Our subcommittee’s work will expose people who need to be FIRED. The bureaucrats who don’t do their job, fail audits like in the Pentagon, and don’t know where BILLIONS of dollars are going, will be getting a pink slip."

Speaking of bureaucrats, I'm seeing complaints about Trump's appointments that are faulting them for not being bureaucratic enough.

"John Thune Says Recess Appointments 'On the Table' To Get Trump Picks Through."

Newsweek reports.

"I think that all options are on the table, including recess appointments. Hopefully, it doesn't get to that but we'll find out fairly quickly whether the Democrats want to play ball or not," [Thune] said on Thursday during an interview....

If Trump were to use recess appointments at the start of his term, those appointees could remain in their positions until the end of the next Senate session, or until 2026.

Per the Congressional Research Service, former President Barack Obama made 32 recess appointments, ex-President George W. Bush made 171 and former President Bill Clinton made 139 while the Senate was on recess....

"Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments (in the Senate!), without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner," Trump posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday.