Elon Musk has floated the idea of a government efficiency commission aimed at addressing wasteful spending and regulations in Washington. Former President Donald Trump embraced Musk’s idea, stating that if re-elected he would establish such a commission with Musk at the helm. While government efficiency commissions can indeed be powerful tools for reform, they are also easy to ignore or sideline, particularly when their recommendations are controversial or if they are set up merely for political optics rather than substantive change. The success of such a commission therefore lies in its structure and its role within a broader policy mandate to overhaul government, such as through an explicit government-wide goal of reducing regulation.
Musk and Trump can learn from the past, starting with looking at commissions that have offered valuable recommendations that went unheeded. A prime example is the 2010 Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, which was formed during the Obama administration to address the federal deficit. The commission’s recommendations were well-researched and pragmatic, tackling tough issues like Medicare and Social Security reform. Despite the balanced and informed nature of its suggestions, Congress ultimately chose not to act on them. The commission’s failure was largely due to the politically sensitive nature of its proposals and a lack of consensus within Congress, underscoring the importance of not just having good ideas but having the political will and bipartisan cooperation to see those ideas through.
Similarly, some commissions are formed to create the illusion of action without any genuine intention to make changes. This is similar to how Congress sometimes requires a study of a particular problem instead of addressing the problem itself. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp’s Georgians First Commission made thoughtful recommendations on how to reduce regulatory burdens in the state, yet they remain unimplemented. This suggests the creation of the commission was more of a political maneuver than a substantive effort to reform government bureaucracy.
To be effective, therefore, Trump and Musk’s proposed commission should seek to avoid these pitfalls and instead build upon models that have yielded tangible results. One example comes from New Jersey under former Governor Chris Christie. During Christie’s tenure, New Jersey created the Red Tape Review Commission. The commission was proactive, met regularly, and included members from different political backgrounds and sectors.
The New Jersey commission also produced regular reporting, which was impactful in part because it included powerful stories illustrating how problematic regulations were interfering with the daily lives of people. These were stories of business owners, workers, and residents struggling to jump through government-created hoops in their efforts to improve their stations in life. The commission’s recommendations were acted upon multiple times by the legislature. Although an effort to make the commission permanent ultimately failed, it had broad support, with only one opposing vote in the legislature. The failure was due to Governor Phil Murphy’s veto and his reluctance to hand a political win to former Governor Christie.
Trump and Christie may have their differences, but regulatory reform could be an area of productive collaboration. It might even make sense for Trump to consider involving Christie in the proposed commission.
A key challenge for any efficiency commission is that it inherently lacks enforcement power. It can make recommendations, but it cannot compel anyone to act. This is why commissions are easy to ignore, particularly in the face of competing interests within government. Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency or the Securities and Exchange Commission operate independently and have their own priorities. Even if a commission led by Musk were to identify a regulatory problem, there is little reason to believe agency heads would prioritize it. Most prefer to spend time cementing their legacies with new initiatives, rather than revisiting the work of their predecessors.
The effectiveness of such a commission will also depend on its ability to produce recommendations that are driven by consensus and backed by evidence. This is why a bipartisan makeup is important. Musk may ultimately lead the commission, but it should include representatives and stakeholders from both major parties. Without bipartisan participation, any recommendations risk being dismissed as political—by Congress, by agency staff, and even in some cases by members of Trump’s own cabinet. A broad coalition of support will help guarantee that recommendations are seen as pragmatic and in the public interest.
Like in New Jersey, the commission should produce regular reports—annually, if not more often—identifying programs and regulations in need of reform. It should engage with nonpartisan offices like the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office to collect data and ideas. Academic research should be gathered and summarized, ensuring that recommendations are well-supported by empirical evidence. The more rigorous and transparent the commission’s work, the harder it will be for its findings to be ignored.
The proposed commission should also work in tandem with other regulatory reform mechanisms, such as a regulatory budget and reduction goals—both of which were features of Trump’s first term. Setting a regulatory budget limits the total cost that regulations can impose on the economy, forcing agencies to prioritize eliminating outdated and inefficient regulations rather than adding new rules to the pile. A regulatory reduction goal similarly incentivizes agencies toward achieving a desired outcome. A goal of, say, cutting the Code of Federal Regulations by 25,000 pages or reducing annual compliance and paperwork costs by $200 billion, is realistic and actionable, and would give the commission an idea of its intended purpose.
In Trump’s first term, his administration also appointed “deregulation officers” within agencies. These were people whose role was to make sure that the regulatory reduction agenda was being implemented. Individuals who are empowered within agencies to advocate for reform from the inside could be powerful allies to an efficiency commission. Their roles should be reinstated to complement the work of the commission.
The idea of an efficiency commission, particularly one led by Elon Musk, is an exciting prospect, but it must be implemented wisely. It has to be more than just a symbolic gesture. Every recommendation should be backed by evidence and presented in a nonpartisan light, forming part of a comprehensive plan to streamline the federal bureaucracy and foster greater accountability in government. A government efficiency commission is a good idea, but how it gets set up matters.