来自《华尔街日报》的观点版块，这里是 patomic watch，欢迎回来。说到 DOGE，也就是埃隆·马斯克在政府效率部所做的工作，马斯克本周来到了椭圆形办公室。下面是他解释为何认为 DOGE 的使命如此重要：我们有 2 万亿美元的赤字，如果我们不对这项赤字采取行动，国家就要破产了。我的意思是，确实，确实，确实令人震惊，呃，仅国债的利息支出就超过了国防部的预算，这令人震惊，因为我们在国防上花了很多，我们在国防上花了很多钱，但是，而且，如果这种情况继续下去，我们基本上会让国家破产。所以我真正想说的是，这就像，我们坐下来去并不是可选项

削减联邦开支，这至关重要，这对美国作为一个国家保持偿付能力至关重要，也对美国拥有为其公民提供各种东西所必需的资源至关重要，而不是仅仅偿付巨额债务。Kim，我们坐在这里，新政府上任3、4周，你认为这项Doge工作的进展如何？在其中一些法律被提交、法官发布了一些限制令和临时行政中止令之后，它在联邦法院取得了一些进展，但本周有很多议论，说华盛顿现在出现了一场Doge宪法危机。这完全是无稽之谈。顺便说一下，我认为Doge最初的

几周里，关于它在一直试图做的一切事情上是否足够透明，可能确实有一点可批评之处。我不认为那是故意的，我不认为它试图鬼鬼祟祟，我认为这只是一项规模庞大的工作。我会让人们看看就在本周，他们上线了一个Doge网站，他们也一直通过他们在X上的一个账号，整理记录自己做过的事情。就我们能够看到的、他们已经成功完成的事情而言，已经包括多项完全显然合理的削减。他们确实取消了许多DEI合同，例如，他们正在取消高管辅导合同。我们知道，一些非常荒唐且难以辩护的拨款已经被叫停，这些拨款来自美国国际援助发展组织

USAID。他们也一直在，你知道，取消租约和整合空间。至于那些大的事项，那正是他们正在法庭上应对的，而现实是，他们正在采取的措施中，有很大、很大一部分源自唐纳德·特朗普最初的一些行政命令，在法律上有相当坚实的依据。这正是许多这种混乱报道，也就是他们所声称的混乱，所遗漏的地方：实际上，许多这些措施背后都经过了大量思考。我会把冻结或暂停某些支出归入这一类。你知道，听着，对于许多支出，国会并没有明确规定资金必须在某一天之前从一道门里发出去。甚至上一届政府在根据其中一些法律发放部分资金之前，也等待了很长时间，因为

它当时在核查谁会拿到这些钱，并设立项目，所以那当然是允许的。本周有一名法官同意特朗普政府继续向联邦雇员提出买断方案，并称就此提起诉讼的工会不具备诉讼资格。我还要提到Schedule F，这是把某些公务员重新分类的计划，也就是那些拥有大量政策制定权力的人，以便在他们没有履行职责时，更容易调动或解雇他们。这是特朗普在第一个任期内尝试过的事情，拜登基本上将其拆除了，甚至制定了一项法规，试图在未来阻挠它。值得注意的是，即便那项拜登法规也从未暗示这是非法的，事实上，你可以查阅这些

法规，其中有坚实的依据，说明他们为什么能够做这样的事情。所以我会主张，他们所做的大部分事情——你永远无法判断法院会怎样，法院正在裁决这些事情——但他们进入法庭时有一个坚实的案子。宪法危机是人们在没有许可的情况下绕开法院行事，而这里发生的并不是那种情况。说到这一点，Alicia，我确实也有一些担忧，即两党都在蹑手蹑脚地走向这样一个节点：某位总统，总统可能会决定，自己将试图公然违抗法院针对某个项目的命令；一个学生单独项目可能是民主党方面的一个例子。在我看来，其中有些做法是在向两党的基本盘作姿态。这就是那条传遍全世界的推文

本周来自JD·万斯。他写道：“如果一名法官试图告诉一名将军该如何实施军事行动，那将是非法的；如果一名法官试图命令司法部长以及她该如何行使作为检察官的裁量权，那也是非法的。法官不被允许控制行政部门的合法权力。”许多人把这解读为一种暗示，即特朗普政府正迫不及待地要无视法院。而在我看来，这并不是唯一的解读方式。我会对万斯的说法提出一点异议。我的意思是，也许法官不能告诉司法部长如何行使作为检察官的裁量权，但如果司法部长例如正在基于政党开展有针对性的选择性起诉，我认为法院在依据现有的选择性起诉原则撤销

其中一些案件时不会遇到多少困难。但同样值得注意的是，主要人物特朗普总统周二被问到法院裁决时，他是这样说的：“我一向遵守法院裁决，然后我将不得不提出上诉。”所以Alicia，我的意思是，也许我们会走到某个节点，届时会出现某项不利于Doge的裁决，而行政部门会说它不会遵守，但至少在我看来，我们显然还没有走到那里。对，他们正在上诉。全国各地不同的联邦地区法院已经受理了大约60起或超过60起诉讼。顺便说一下，这些诉讼大多集中在第一巡回上诉法院，因为那里现在是最自由派的巡回法院。所有任职于

该上诉法院的法官都是民主党任命的，因此民主党人主要在那里起诉，是因为他们押注自己会获胜，而且最高法院不会受理其中许多案件。说到你提到的特朗普，他说过自己会对这些案件提出上诉，但会遵守法院裁决，而这基本上也是他第一个任期内所做的。如果你还记得，他多次遭到起诉，其中少数案件最终一路上诉到最高法院。例如公民身份问题，也就是人口普查局能否在其2020年调查中加入公民身份问题。他在那起案件中败诉，并遵守了判决。他在能否撤销奥巴马的DACA计划这个问题上败诉，或者至少最高法院裁定，他没有遵循适当的

程序，因此他必须那么做。于是他又回过头来尝试再次撤销它，并遵守《行政程序法》。所以在特朗普第二个任期期间，我会预期出现不同。我认为他们可能会输掉其中一些案件，尤其是那些他们试图推翻长期存在的普雷斯顿的案件。例如解雇NLRB的一名、一名成员，这公然违反了1935年的汉弗行政总统，而我不确定美国最高法院实际上是否会等待介入并受理那个、那个案件。但他们正在记录许多挑战，可能是因为他们预计，是的，他们会输，但他们绝不会少尝试。嗯，他们有一些政府律师

对宪法采取非常原旨主义的看法，所以他们正在为最高法院准备一些案件。在某些案件中，他们可能正在扩张行政权力，但正如Kim所说，你知道，乔·拜登也这样做过许多次，甚至可能做得更过分，比如学生贷款减免、驱逐禁令，你还可以继续列下去，还有疫苗强制令。而且我不确定，特朗普正在做的事情在任何案件中是否，你知道，更加恶劣。许多这类案件最终将不得不由法院解决。谢谢你，Alicia，也谢谢Kim。感谢大家收听。你可以发电子邮件到pwp podcast wsj.

com。如果你喜欢这个节目，请点击订阅按钮，我们下周将带着另一期Pomac Watch回来。

from the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal this is patomic watch welcome back speaking of Doge the Elon Musk effort at the department of government efficiency musk was at the Oval Office this week here he is explaining why he views the Doge Mission as so important so we've got a $2 trillion deficit and if this if we don't do something about this deficit country is going bankrupt I mean it's it's it's really astounding that the uh the interest payments alone on the national debt exceed the defense department budget which is shocking because we got a lot we spend a lot of money on defense but and and if that just keeps going we're essentially going to bankrupt the country so what what I really want to say is like it's not optional for us to sit to

reduce the federal expenses it's essential it's essential for America to remain solvent as a country and it's essential for America to have the resources necessary to provide things to its citizens and not simply be servicing vast amounts of debt Kim what's your sense as we sit here 3 four weeks into the new administration of where this Doge effort stands it has made some Headway in the federal courts after some of these laws were filed and had some restraining orders temporary administrative stays that were issued by judges but a lot of chatter this week about the idea that there is now a doge constitutional crisis in Washington this is absolutely nonsense Doge by the way I think that there's probably a little bit of criticism to be had about its initial

weeks in whether or not it was transparent enough about everything it's been trying to do I don't think that that was purposeful I don't think it's trying to be shady I think it's just an enormous effort and I would Point people to just this week they got a doge website up they've also been cataloging what they've been doing on X with an account they have what they have done that we can see that they have successfully accomplished has been a number of cuts already in things that just make eminent sense they did get rid of a lot of Dei contracts they're cancelling for instance Executive coaching contracts we know about some of the very silly and hardto defend grants that have been shut down out of coming out of the US International Aid development group

usaid they've also you know been canceling leases and consolid in space in terms of the big ones that's where they're in court and the reality is that a a huge percentage of the steps that they are taking that stem from some of Donald Trump's initial executive orders are on pretty solid legal ground that's what a lot of this chaos coverage what they claim as chaos is missing is that there has actually been a lot of thought behind a lot of these and I would put into that category the freeze or pause on some spending you know look Congress for a lot of the spending did not specify that money had to go out of a door by a certain day even the prior Administration waited long periods of time before issuing some of the money from some of these laws because

it was checking who was getting it and setting up programs so that's certainly allowable you had a judge this week that agreed with the Trump Administration to allow its buyout offer of federal employees to go forward said that the Union who had sued over that did not have standing I would mention schedule F which is this plan to reclassify certain civil servants those that have a lot of policy-making authority in a way that makes it easier to transfer them or fire them if they are not doing their jobs this was something Trump tried in the first term Biden essentially dismantled it and even put up a regulation to try to thwart it in the future notably even that Biden regulation never suggested that this was illegal and in fact you can look through the

statutes and there solid ground for why they would be able to do something like this so I would argue that most of what they are doing you never can tell with the courts the courts are adjudicating it but they have a solid case going into court and a constitutional crisis is when people are operating outside of a court without license and that's not what's happening here to that point Alicia I do share some of the concern that both parties are are tiptoeing toward the point where one president president might decide that he is going to try to flout a court order against a program a student alone program might be one example on the Democratic side some of this strikes me as posturing for the base of both parties this was the Tweet heard around the world

this week from JD Vance he wrote If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation that would be illegal if a judge tried to command the attorney general and how to use her discretion as a prosecutor that's also illegal a judges aren't allowed to control the executives legitimate power and that was read by many people as a suggestion that the Trump Administration is raring to go out and ignore the courts and to my eye that's not the only way to read that I would quibble with Vance somewhat I mean maybe judges can't tell the Attorney General how to use discretion as prosecutor but if the Attorney General is doing targeted selective prosecution based on political party for example the courts I think would have very little trouble setting

some of those cases aside under existing doctrines of selective prosecution for example but notable also that President Trump the principal was asked on Tuesday about court rulings and here's what he said I always abide by the courts and then I'll have to appeal it and so Alicia I mean maybe we will get to a point where there is some ruling against Doge that the executive branch is going to say it's not going to follow but we are certainly not there yet at least to my eye right they are appealing there have been some 60 or more than 60 lawsuits filed in various district courts around the country they're mostly concentrated by the way in the First Circuit Court of Appeals and that's because that is now the most liberal circuit all the judges who sit on

the appeals court are democratic appointees and so the reason why Democrats are primarily suing there is because they're betting that they're going to win and then the Supreme Court won't take up a lot of these cases to your point about Trump has said that he will appeal these but will abide by Court rulings and that's essentially what he did in his first term if you recall he was sued a number of times and few of the cases ended up going up to the Supreme Court for instance the citizenship question or whether the Census Bureau could include a citizenship question on its 2020 survey it lost that it abided by the decision it lost the question of whether it could roll back Obama's DACA program or at least the Supreme Court ruled that it didn't follow proper

procedures and therefore it would have to do so and so then it went back about trying to roll it back again in comply with the administrative procedure act and so I would expect anything different under during a Trump's second term I think they will probably lose some of these cases especially the ones in which they're trying to overturn longstanding Preston for instance the firing of one one of the nlrb members which blatantly violates a 1935 of the humph executive president and I'm not sure the US Supreme Court is going to actually wait in and take that that case but they're recording a lot of challenges probably with they expecting that yeah they're going to lose but they're going to never less try um they have some of the administration's lawyers

take a very originalist view of the Constitution so they're teeing up some cases for the Supreme Court they are in some cases probably stretching exec Ive power but as to Kim's point you know Joe Biden did that a number of times and perhaps even more so with the student loan forgiveness eviction moratorium you could go down the line vaccine mandates and I'm not sure like what Trump is doing is in in any case you know more egregious a lot of these cases will ultimately have to be settled by the courts thank you Alicia and Kim thank you all for listening you can email us at pwp podcast wsj.

com if you like the show please hit that subscribe button and we'll be back next week with another edition of pomac Watch