Tucker Carlson and Russ Vought Break Down DOGE and All of Trump’s Cabinet Picks So Far

Russ Vought ran OMB under Trump the first time, and hopefully will again. Here’s what he learned about how the deep state actually works.

Show more

If you enjoy my Videos, Please LIKE and SHARE, buy me a Coffee at paypal.me/BruceAFigert

Chapters
6 chapters in this episode
What is the Office of Management and Budget?
00:00:00
1. What is the Office of Management and Budget?
How Our Intel Agencies Overrule the President
00:07:58
2. How Our Intel Agencies Overrule the President
What Will the Congressional Hearings Look Like for Trump’s Appointees?
00:27:21
3. What Will the Congressional Hearings Look Like for Trump’s Appointees?
The Evil Think Tanks Trying to Undermine You
00:32:55
4. The Evil Think Tanks Trying to Undermine You
The Root Problem of Government Corruption
00:46:06
5. The Root Problem of Government Corruption
Elon and Vivek’s Plan with DOGE
01:10:00
6. Elon and Vivek’s Plan with DOGE
Transcript

Tucker [00:00:00] So you ran OMB before and you don't have to comment on this. It sounds like you are very likely to run OMB again. Tell us what OMB is for those who aren't from Washington, what it does and what you would do with it.

Russ Vought [00:00:17] So OMB is the nerve center of the federal government, particularly the executive branch. So it has the ability to turn on and off any spending within the-

Tucker [00:00:26] Office of Management and Budget.

Russ Vought [00:00:27] Office of Management and Budget has the ability to turn off the spending that's going on at the agencies. It has all the regulations coming through it to assess whether it's good or bad or too expensive or could be done in a different way, or what does the president think? And then all of government execution. So any time you have cabinet executive branches conflicting with each other are working together on something. For instance, you know, the wall president wanted to fund the wall. We at OMB gave him a plan to be able to go and fund the wall through money that was the Department of Defense. And to use that because Congress wouldn't give him the ordinary money at the Department of Homeland Security. So it really is presidents use OMB to tame the bureaucracy, the administrative state. It was really pioneered honestly by FDR. And then President Nixon also was really learning from FDR and how to use it to tame the bureaucracy. And we would have seen did he.

Tucker [00:01:47] Create the office?

Russ Vought [00:01:48] Roosevelt. The office was formerly the bureau the budget for the last hundred years, right. And then Nixon renamed it Office of Management and Budget. And it becomes kind of more of a statutory thing reporting directly to the president no longer within Treasury. And so since then, you've had it still they're still really important, viewed by the country largely as a budget cutting exercise. But it is it is the president's most important tool to dealing with the bureaucracy, administrative state. And, you know, the nice thing about President Trump is he knows that and he knows how to use it effectively.

Tucker [00:02:32] See, you can't get any of your domestic policy done with that. OMB, it sounds like.

Russ Vought [00:02:36] No, you you will be in a situation where you will have at best really awesome cabinet secretaries who are dealing on sitting on top of massive bureaucracies that largely don't do what they tell them to do. And you have to have statutory tools at your disposal that force that bureaucracy from the White House to get in line. And that is really the main thing that OMB can accomplish, in addition to what everyone would think of from a budget office, which is, know, you cut spending, you figure out how to deal with your fiscal finances and all of that.

Tucker [00:03:13] You're making me anxious. I mean, I can't handle a disobedient dog. I can't imagine what a disobedient federal agency looks like. How how resistant are they to democracy?

Russ Vought [00:03:24] They're incredibly resistant. I mean, think about Ukraine. And the president in that first term wanted to cut off funding for Ukraine. Why? Because it's a corrupt country and we didn't know how it was going to be spent. It's totally normal policy process to go through that the people lost their minds about, but the bureaucracy was literally just ignoring it. And quite frankly, his political appointees, like John Bolton, were ignoring him as well. And what we then did at OMB was I had been personally told, look, you know, I want the money cut off until we can figure out where it's going. And we got the money off and it was like all hell broke loose within the bureaucracy.

Tucker [00:04:03] He got impeached. Yeah.

Russ Vought [00:04:05] And so.

Tucker [00:04:07] It did. Yeah.

Russ Vought [00:04:08] And so you have the ability at that point to bring them to come to heal and to do what the president has been telling them to do. And we can do that in foreign aid. We can do that, all sorts of things.

Tucker [00:04:18] But it's kind of crazy if I mean, everything you're saying I'm familiar with. But if you think about it, that's the end of democracy, because the only authority in the executive branch comes from the president. The vice president also elected, but it comes from voters as expressed through elections. So bureaucrats in the federal agency, appointees in the federal agency have no authority to act independently. That under our Constitution.

Russ Vought [00:04:43] And this is really the left has innovated over 100 years to create this fourth branch of an administrative state. I but you and I might call it the regime, this administrative state that is totally unaccountable to the president that lets it move in the direction that it has been going.

Tucker [00:05:02] But the president is accountable to voters or members of Congress. And the system is designed that way. That's why we say it's a democracy or a constitutional republic, because the voters convey bestow the authority on their leaders. And so this seems not only illegal their behavior, but unconstitutional. I mean, at the most basic level, unconstitutional now totally unconstitutional.

Russ Vought [00:05:26] And if you would have seen Woodrow Wilson bemoan our constitutional system, he would have wanted constitutional amendments. The left stop talking about constitutional amendments because they innovated to this new fourth branch, which is totally different than anything the founders would have ever understood. The notion of independent agencies that think of and in Congress is designed them to be divorced from the president. But even the notion of like, this is this is we're supposed to be technocrats and experts and we don't have to listen to what you what you say we work for. And I like this, Tucker. People would say, well, we we work for the office of the president. What what is that? That it's a win.

Tucker [00:06:09] Where does it get its authority?

Russ Vought [00:06:11] They get their authority. They have essentially taken authority.

Tucker [00:06:16] They have no legitimate authority.

Russ Vought [00:06:17] Have no legitimate authority in the Constitution. But they are part of this this fourth branch that I still believe reports in in large measure to congressional leadership and in the K Street interests. Right. You have very powerful interests that direct them. To keep going in the direction that they want them to go. It's why these bills are written in such a way that they are anything you could read, anything into them. Right. When Nancy Pelosi says we're going to find out what the bill says. She wasn't actually being inaccurate. That's their strategy. They passed bills and then they let the experts fill them in. But over the phone, they put massive pressure on them to go along with their their directions and their ends. And lo and behold, you get conservatives, Republicans that take office, and then you find that it's incredibly difficult to wield power, to get them to deal with all of that muscle memory, to get them to do what you want. And so you've got to have statutory authority that a president kind of steps in and says, I am fully aware of where I sit in the Constitution. I am fully aware of the tools at my disposal, and I'm going to use them on behalf of the American people because I just want a massive agenda setting election and I'm going to go do what I said I would do.

Tucker [00:07:37] That's democracy, correct?

Russ Vought [00:07:38] That is democracy. That is not oligarchy. And when they say we're going to preserve democracy, we know that they have been meaning all they they want to do is preserve their kind of amorphous oligarchy, administrative deep state.

Tucker [00:07:51] I don't think that's an overstatement at all. I mean, I just think I don't even see the kind of argument against what you just said. So let's just if you don't mind walking us through what happened in the example that you gave Ukraine. So you just said the president comes into office in 2017 and says, why are we saying all this money to Ukraine? Where's it going? There's no audit. We don't know. It's the most corrupt country in Europe, one of the most corrupt in the world. Maybe we should find out. We don't know. Okay. We're cutting off. Don't we know? I think that's what you said. And then the agencies like now we're going to continue to fund Ukraine. How do they do that?

Russ Vought [00:08:24] They ignore the president in there and in officials ignore the president. And I think one of the things you'll see in this this next Trump term is policy officials, his political appointees that are not looking to get out of what he has clearly told them to do. Right. So let's let's assume that issue is solved. But at the bureaucratic the issue.

Tucker [00:08:47] I think what you're saying is let's assume that he appoints people who agree with him and will do what he asks. Correct. Okay.

Russ Vought [00:08:52] So, for instance, my staff was part of the what we call the policy process, right? Where you would go and you defend that and you would articulate what you're trying to accomplish. And we had put the hold on the Ukraine funding. And my guy goes to the the all of these meetings and he's like literally the only one in the room that wants to do what the president has asked him to do. Everyone's kind of just ganging up on him. And that is the think of that often for all of our political appointees. They are surrounded by people that have no idea about what the reasons and the agenda that the president has been put in office. And they're just bombarded with reasons of how can you do this? What are you thinking? Did you know that this is you can't do this most of the time? That's not true. And so you have to cut through all of that and to have the courage of your convictions. And quite frankly, Tucker, the know how to know, to have read the law, to get in the granular details yourselves, to not be staffed by your inner ear and people working for you, you this notion that you can just come in and preside is not true. You have to you have to be in the weeds and to drive these agencies to be able to fix where we have, you know, the undergrowth and the muscle memory that we've had for decades.

Tucker [00:10:14] So why can't you just. So if the president says again to refer to your example, I don't think we should be funding Ukraine. I'm elected. We're going to cut this off. If Congress wants to fund Ukraine, they can go ahead and do that. But the agencies are not going to fund Ukraine. So. Why wouldn't you just fire the people who disobey who who try to subvert democracy?

Russ Vought [00:10:36] You've got to know how to fire them. And there are tools to do that. And the president was was innovating in that space himself with what's called schedule F of essentially saying, if you work for me in your policy, a career officials think you're attorneys who are writing regulations, then we're going to create a new classification for you. And you are you are going to be what most of the country is, which is at will employee. That's where we were headed. But there was also ways.

Tucker [00:11:03] That I don't understand a system where a president, any President Obama, Biden, Donald Trump comes in and doesn't have control of the executive branch because constitutionally he does have so severely. How come you can't fire them? Why is that just not as simple as saying you're fired?

Russ Vought [00:11:21] It should be. And this is one of the the the mountains of the administrative state. You know, this is that this is how they have built their their their institution by essentially having to be incredibly difficult to hire and fire employees. And so I'll get another example. When the president decided to take money from defense to build the wall, we had clear legal grounds to do it that Congress had given us. It's called transfer authority. And I told this to the Hill and obviously this was controversial. It shouldn't have been controversial. Congress had given us very clear transfer authority. I must have had at least three times someone relitigate that decision from the career staff who work at OMB. Are you sure? Are you sure? I think we should oppose. I think this move, guys, the decision has been made. Execute the decision. And you see that everywhere, right? And if you don't if you don't drive it, you're going to get better. You're not going to be able to accomplish what the president needs you to.

Tucker [00:12:25] How about if he were just to start the meeting with any. Okay, this is how democracy works. The people elect a leader. He carries out their will. Anyone standing in the way of that is subverting democracy. We will not allow that. Anyone who does that is fired instantly. Could you do that and just say you're fired for unconstitutional behavior?

Russ Vought [00:12:43] You can do that. Increasingly, when you move towards a schedule F system, and then there are other tools in the toolbox.

Tucker [00:12:50] But under the current system, what would happen if you tried that, if you lost lawsuits?

Russ Vought [00:12:54] Lawsuits? Yeah.

Tucker [00:12:55] But if you fire them all.

Russ Vought [00:12:58] Look, you've got a lot of tools on the table.

Tucker [00:13:01] And it's just so infuriating.

Russ Vought [00:13:03] Look, it is one of the most infuriating things that you could possibly imagine. But I think that the good news and this is I think the good news, not just in hiring, firing the good news at large is that most of the time they have been able to get as far as they can because of just it is the way it is. It's precedent and laws that are not drafted precisely, but purposely vague. And as a result, we can then do it in reverse. You can have a president who steps in and says, you know what? There's no constitutional amendment for me to take control of the administrative state. I'm going to do in reverse everything that you have done. And I think that is the great hope. What you need is people who are able to absorb political heat. They don't have a fear of conflict. They can execute under withering enemy fire. They are up to speed and they are no nonsense in their own ability to know what must be done. And they are unbelievably committed to the president and his agenda and believe and truly believe in their bones that they're not there for their own agenda. They're there for what President Trump was elected to do. And so his commander's intent matters a great deal. And that's the view that I always had. Tucker, how do I get in the minds of the president to think through what is he trying to accomplish? And then I'm going to go figure out how to do it.

Tucker [00:14:30] Yeah, because once again, he is the authority and no one else does because only he was elected. And I just I'm fixated on this question of like where to career bureaucrats think they derive the authority to make these decisions, like who made them God? I think it's very. No one ever asked that question in DC or considered a freak if you do. But I think it's a key question. So one of the problems that you had last time was the media. Explain how that works, how the media works in conjunction with the permanent state and the Congress to thwart the president.

Russ Vought [00:14:59] Well, I think, number one, they are always framing narratives in messages that both are lies and are also designed to destabilize the Republicans in control who want to be for however, that narrative is being framed. You used one already with democracy, right? If you're not aware that when they say democracy, they mean oligarchy, You're like, I don't want to be anti-democratic.

Tucker [00:15:28] That's the whole point is preserving democracy is what we just did.

Russ Vought [00:15:31] You know, if you if you have a plan to deal with the administrative state and then they frame it as authoritarian, you don't want to cast of your own allies saying, I don't want to be anti-authoritarian. We saw this in Covid right where.

Tucker [00:15:44] We.

Russ Vought [00:15:45] Live. They decided if they define something as anti-science or anti public health, it causes our political appointees to just completely wilt. Right. And so that's I think the beauty of President Trump is he's kind of immune to these these media generated narratives that conflict with common sense reality that I think is the main one, because that's that is there that is controlling the skies from a military standpoint. Right? Like that is their ability to to to shape the conversation in such a way that it makes it very hard. Number two, they're obviously working in conjunction with with leakers and individuals with know how to know, you know, when a hold has been put on Ukraine to be able to send that and have it explode in the public arena. And so you have to you have to be prevent leaks. You have to govern well from the get go to be able to manage all of that as best you possibly can. And but I also think there's an opportunity there because they will they will they will report on conflict. They will report on confrontation. And when you when they do that, you can get the word out as to what you're doing. At least you can get the word out on on shows like this and in the new and developing ecosystem.

Tucker [00:17:04] Well, that's kind of it right there. I mean, that was the basis of my question. I do think things have changed, right? I mean, if you still care with The New York Times, The Washington Post, say, or ten, Delaney told NBC News like, I hope you're not working there. Right, right, right. Do you think anybody still cares what they think now?

Russ Vought [00:17:23] And the whole ball game has shifted, right? Like, I don't even know why you would do many of these interviews at all because if you can't get you know, you've got to be able to get your words out without just complete combativeness. And I think the best example is remember the Kaitlan Collins interview with President Trump? I mean, it just constant interrupting and misuse of, you know, lies, actually. Right. And so, like, that's the kind of thing that you're up against. But you. Can shape them. You can. Particularly the print media. And I think there are you know, I think it's important to at least attempt to do that. But you have to make the measure of the person that you're dealing with. And sometimes they're just you know, they're they're complete activists themselves.

Tucker [00:18:14] I'm Tucker Carlson for Al. Now, as you know, the FDA requires us to warn you while we do the warning, quote, warning this product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. And quote, We're required to tell you that by the federal government, but we don't shy away from that. It's addictive and there's an upside to it. Yes, nicotine is an addictive chemical. That is true. There are a lot of things in life you forget your car keys, your wallet. One thing you're never going to forget is out because nicotine is an addictive chemical. You may forget to put your shoes on in the morning. You may forget to kiss your wife on the way out. You may come home and not remember your own dog's name. But one thing you're not going to forget is your ALP. Why? Because you're addicted to it. Because your body will tell you, Hey. Better bring your ALP with you and you will. I do. I'm never anywhere without my ALP. It's by the side of my bed. When I go to sleep, it's there. When I wake up in the morning, it's in the front pocket of my pants as I head out into the world. ALP is always with me. It's on the desk because I do interviews everywhere I am. ALP is because it's an addictive chemical. That's exactly right. And we're not afraid of that. We're not ashamed of it. It's addictive in the same way that air, water and sex are addictive. They're so great and you want to do them every day. Thankfully, it's easy to have the ALP with you at all times. Just go to our website. ALP couch.com and never be without it. Nicotine. Yes, it's addictive. That's why we like it. It does seem. I want to ask about the Intel agencies. It does seem like one of the main vectors of control is briefings and the number of people I've spoken to Congress executive branch like, no, if you only got the briefing, I think I live there too long. I just don't believe the briefing. You know, maybe sometimes they're accurate, sometimes they're not. But they're almost always designed to control the person being briefed. Did you see.

Russ Vought [00:20:07] That? I did. And I very rarely ever learned anything particularly interesting to read.

Tucker [00:20:12] Is that true? Yeah. They didn't tell you who killed Kennedy?

Russ Vought [00:20:15] They did not. Right. And so, you know, I think I came away with the similar skepticism of these briefings and the information and the overclassification in the system. Yes, they classified everything. And you're really reading this thing. You're like you realize that's all just normal stuff that's out in a Congressional Research Service.

Tucker [00:20:35] Yeah, it's on Twitter. Right.

Russ Vought [00:20:36] And so, like so I think that's a huge thing we've got to fix, you know, overclassification in system. But I think they they both create this environment where it's very exclusive. They are trying to bring you into their kind of priestly role. So that. No, I. I saw the briefing. If you had seen the briefing, you would you would you would be okay with us not having a FISA warrant requirement. Exactly right. You would be okay with us. Just another $100 billion for Ukraine. Just we can't have Ukraine fall that none of it is is is is is rigorous analysis. And honestly, I think that's the biggest thing that I was bemoaning is that the extent to which rigorous analysis that I thought would be there, wasn't there.

Tucker [00:21:25] What do you mean by rigorous analysis?

Russ Vought [00:21:28] I don't expect people to agree with me constantly. I want to I want to I want well prepared memos that. Right. That may that have a conviction to them. Yes. And then support them. It's not these are not like I'm going to plant the flag. Yeah. And then we can do we can just say, okay, who's right. Who's that. Who has better supporting. No, no. It's like I'm going to give the blob an exercise to report on something and the blob is going to kind of like. Org. It's not a Google spreadsheet, but it's going to all be a, you know, an interactive Google spreadsheet to just spit out something that is a consensus document. And you're reading this thing and you're like, This makes no real claims other than to affirm the narrative that we just talked about.

Tucker [00:22:12] Right. So what's the point other than to preserve the status quo?

Russ Vought [00:22:16] At that point, the point is just to know what the intelligence community is writing on, that you're not going to learn anything from it.

Tucker [00:22:22] I talked to someone recently in the last few days who works in the Intel community. I see who was saying that you can see people who come to Washington for the first time in high positions in either branch before and after their briefings. And they're like different people and they they fall for it, like all of them fall for it. You know, now we're going to tell you all the things you wondered about. We're going to tell you the truth about the presidents, especially Trump, seems, as you said, immune from this. And he's done it before. But this person said you should see how much they changed. Like deep inside, once we let you know, lay the bullshit on them, they just they're not the same. Have you noticed that?

Russ Vought [00:23:00] I've seen it. You know, I think part of the problem and this is endemic of not just the. I see, but are we don't read enough in general. We don't have our own convictions. We don't search for understanding ourselves. And so you have people go in and they're like, I'm I kind of need this career staff to tell me what to think. I don't want to look stupid, Right? And so that has killed us on our side of the aisle, the conservative side, to say we don't have people that are driving policy and bringing their own opinions and their own history. And so they they are susceptible to feeling like that. And they still they still believe that these people have an authoritative stance on things and they don't have enough skepticism that, in fact, you know, there's no the emperor has no clothes. Right. And then that is the and you've got to bring that perspective.

Tucker [00:23:56] Their weakened side is what you're saying. A lot of these people.

Russ Vought [00:23:59] I do think that I do think that's the case. You know, and I you know, from the standpoint of I see the other thing that they would do is they they would keep you from being briefed. Right. The briefing we've already discussed of what the brief is and sometimes what President Trump is saying, I don't I'm not going to necessarily get the brief right. But. I would find that I wasn't read into certain things until they needed my signature. So once they needed some reason to get my signature, then all of a sudden I get this brief, right? And it was, that's not the way it should be. If you're trying to provide oversight and accountability, you need you don't know what you don't know. And so you have to be able to be have the whole entire landscape of things that you could. That's that's interesting that we should do something that the President Trump wouldn't like that. And I find that was very restrictive unless they needed me. And so I basically said, look, I'm not going to you are not getting my signature unless you get me briefed up. And I want I want access to all of these things that I need to be able to provide oversight for the federal government. And one of the things that we did, Tucker, is that. But since the rise of OMB, their ability to turn funding on and off had always been done by a career individual, not a political appointee. And so we changed that. And it was like that. It was like the world was going to end. They said, look, you're going to destroy the agency. You can't you can't handle the bandwidth.

Tucker [00:25:35] You can't handle the bandwidth.

Russ Vought [00:25:36] Chaos will be will be unmatched. And we changed it. And next thing you know, everything's flown across our desks. That's interesting. You're not doing that. You know, it was just amazing. And if you don't know and have that thesis that says this is what must be done. You could be the most incredible conservative in the world. You could be the most policy consistent person with the president. But you don't know how to put your hand in the glove and and use that agency for the president's behalf. The president's not going to be able to be well served at that agency.

Tucker [00:26:10] I saw David Ignatius, who was a longtime water carrier for the CIA. I don't know if they're paying him, but they should be because he does their bidding and has for decades. At The Washington Post, I heard him saying yesterday that we can't have Tulsi Gabbard at DNI, director of national intelligence, because it will cause, quote, chaos because the Intel community doesn't like her. And basically, he's making the argument that we should not have civilian control of these agencies because the agencies won't like it.

Russ Vought [00:26:38] Just say it. That's what you really mean.

Tucker [00:26:39] Well, I think that's basically what he's saying. So that's again, that's dictatorship is what he's describing. But he used chaos as kind of the threat. Okay. But you've been there. If you really did everything that was needed in order to root out the corruption that defines our government, you will cause some chaos. You would, wouldn't you?

Russ Vought [00:27:07] You will certainly read in the papers like a.

Tucker [00:27:09] Book, right? That's good. Fair.

Russ Vought [00:27:10] You know, as to what's what. What just is normal good government behind the scenes, managing, pushing, pushing through, whatever. I think it can be done very wisely in and done in a way that you know, anyone who had a bird's eye view into that would be able to say that's exactly what we put this administration into office. But yeah, you're going to have to kick over people's paradigms. You're going to have to kick over people's turfs. You're going to have to change people's understanding of things that they have invested their whole life into a view of the world. And none of this is their view of the world and isn't rooted in the Constitution in some case, in some cases, any, you know, version of the facts. But you're going to that's going to cause a lot of turmoil within these bureaucracies and you've got to fight through it. And then there's the overlay, the aspect of, my gosh, you guys are racists. And, you know, you guys don't care about us as people. You know, you don't have to deal with that, too, right? They're you know, one of the arguments that they're using in the press against me right now, as they say, he he called for trauma within the bureaucracies. Yeah, I called for trauma with an embarrassing you. Bureaucracies hate the American people. They want to put a 77 year old and did a 77 year old Navy veteran in jail for 18 months for building four ponds on his ranch to fight wildfires. That's not the Department of Justice. That's the EPA. You go every agency. And it's not just big government. It's weaponized against the country, of course. And so, yeah, we we I would want to provide trauma against that bureaucracy in a way that frees the American people from the people that have assumed that the type of power that the Constitution and no law, no public debate ever gave them. Does that mean we dislike everyone working at federal agencies and want them to have a bad life? No, of course, there's a lot of people there who have come to serve and do great public service, and we want to affirm that. And we want to turn over the bureaucracies that are traumatizing the American people.

Tucker [00:29:16] Yeah. And the outcomes are terrible and they're terrible because it's corrupt. That's why it doesn't change. And the D.C. metro area is the richest in the country and they don't make anything. So it's just like that's the most obvious marker for corruption I can imagine. Tell us about what. Congressional confirmation hearings are going to look like for Trump's appointees.

Russ Vought [00:29:39] They're going to be they're going to be exhilarating if you have the right approach to them. But they'll you know, they're going to come out of everything we've got, right. You know, everything they've got with with what they are able to put someone in the dock and that individual is going to have to face the balance of wanting to defend everything that they have done in life and belief. And at the same time, you're the thing that's a little hard about is you're you're no longer yourself, right? You are yourself, But you are also going to do a job for a person. So what I think about a particular issue doesn't mean as much as what the president thinks. That's correct. Something like that. And so it is it is a different thing than than coming on and doing an interview about what your viewpoints on or.

Tucker [00:30:31] I know that's that's exactly it's not a cable news set right now.

Russ Vought [00:30:34] So but I think look, I have I've had experience. You know, Bernie Sanders went after me very, very hard in my first confirmation hearing as deputy OMB for essentially believing in John 316. And it was it.

Tucker [00:30:52] Was he hit you? He attacked you on the basis he said, I will not just.

Russ Vought [00:30:55] He certainly said I was a bigot and I should not serve in the federal government because of my Christian faith and believe in something that essentially comes down to what's articulated at sports games with John 316. And that was most crucial.

Tucker [00:31:10] Who's the bigot?

Russ Vought [00:31:11] Who is the bigger right? That's the perfect question. Goes back that most nominees will not go through what I went through. But I will tell them, you will get through it. You will get to the other side and it will be the most freeing thing in the world. You will come out through the end of a process like that and you will. I find it to be at that point exhilarating because it prepares you to take on an enemy fire. What are they going to what are you afraid of? Including you? Bigot, racist, Christian, nationalist, authoritarian. If you if you are if you are not afraid of these attacks and you give them no credence, no credibility, then you think you will be able to get through these things. You will be able to convince enough senators and you'll be able to serve and you'll be served more effectively. But but the bright lights and will be on in these confirmation hearings soon.

Tucker [00:32:04] How much of it is like theatrical and how much of it is real? Like so you go into a hearing like that, your confirmation hearing. Do you know the outcome at the beginning or do you think that votes really change based on the testimony of nominees?

Russ Vought [00:32:17] I don't think most votes change at all. I think that, you know, you may have 1 or 2 nominally some senators that are trying to, you know, have you answer something to their satisfaction or they're trying to get a feel for you that they haven't otherwise. But I think increasingly in the in our the partizan world that we live in, that the Democrats are voting now. And it's a matter of making sure, you know, you've convinced and you've brought in the.

Tucker [00:32:43] You get I mean, what's interesting.

Russ Vought [00:32:45] Got no Democrat votes.

Tucker [00:32:47] But the Republicans are always voting for the I mean, Lindsey Graham would vote for any Democrat. So I'm not going to put you in an uncomfortable situation. But there are plenty of Republican senators who are liberal Democrats effectively, and they vote for all kinds of nominees. But you don't see that on the other side.

Russ Vought [00:33:02] You never see that on the other side. And they have an appreciation that they have to attack our people at every level because they know that every level is a stepping stone for.

Tucker [00:33:13] The next level.

Russ Vought [00:33:14] Exactly right. To say they don't make us ours is just like the under. Yeah, exactly. You know, they know where we are opposed to that that guy.

Tucker [00:33:21] Will be secretary some.

Russ Vought [00:33:22] Correct.

Tucker [00:33:22] Well you're a progressive for example, aren't you.

Russ Vought [00:33:24] Well certainly the first term right. I become deputy and next thing you know, mix goes to the chief of staff. And so I have an opportunity to serve as deputy as director. And so that is a they understand government and they understand the career path that is is opening for people. And they when they sense it's not always the case, but when they sense that this is a committed conservative, there's a partizan line down the road.

Tucker [00:33:54] Isn't it the role of Republican leaders, particularly now, since Trump won the majority of the popular vote, overwhelming majority of electoral votes, House and Senate, a Republican, majority of statehouses, two governorships, that's a mandate. So that means that Republican leaders that you had guys in the House and Senate should be helping. Are they going to?

Russ Vought [00:34:17] I have high hopes that they that people are seeing what Trump just accomplished and are going to be pulling the orders to get things done as soon as possible. And I think the jury is out. Right. I think I want to see and I'm hoping. To see people looking for ways to move these appointees through the process. And sounds like they're trying to do that. We'll see. But, you know, we we have to do things not based on how it has been done recently. Like this whole notion of the recess appointments. Right. We have some people out there who saying this is unconstitutional is not the way it was meant to be. It's totally wrong. Right. It is a specific provision in the Constitution to be able to allow a president if he does if he has to stand up an administration quickly and he's dealing with a Senate that won't move quickly enough to be able to install his people so that he can actually function as a government. Right. That is specifically mapped out. And yet you have.

Tucker [00:35:17] So in the Constitution, which is by definition not a constitutional. Fair. Fair.

Russ Vought [00:35:22] So yet you have Republicans, one of them in particular, and Wieland right now who's attacking Trump for even mentioning.

Tucker [00:35:29] Who said, well, when.

Russ Vought [00:35:32] He writes one, he's one of the main kind of legal luminaries on the right and ethics in public policy or one of those think tanks. And he's out there opposing the whole notion of recess appointments for for for whatever reason. I don't know other than he thinks that unseemly and not the way the facts don't.

Tucker [00:35:52] I mean, this is a whole separate question and it's a broad brush. But in general, conservative think tanks, with some exceptions, are not conservative. They're tools of the left and sort of repositories of broke down people with no other job prospects. Why would anyone pay attention to them?

Russ Vought [00:36:10] I think they should increasingly not be. Right.

Tucker [00:36:12] And by the way, there are some good ones. And I you know, I love Kevin Roberts heritage. And then there are good people in some think tanks for sure. But in general, it's like the world of Jonah Goldberg. It's like, who cares what you think?

Russ Vought [00:36:22] It the only matter to the extent that people in the arena listen to that. Right. And that is increasingly they're not being listened to. And I think that's part of one of the reasons why they're so arms about it. Right. I mean, National Review itself is that's what is phenomenon.

Tucker [00:36:37] National Review. That was a magazine in the 50s. Right. Right.

Russ Vought [00:36:41] And I think that's but my point is the extent to which people have opposed Trump and the America first agenda, I think, ultimately is a loss of power because they didn't get to set the agenda. They don't get to be the traffic cop. They don't get to kind of say, this is this offends my sensibility anymore. No. If you have a radical constitutionalism and that's really what I've been calling for, given this crazy, unconstitutional situation that we're finding ourselves in for other radical constitutionalism, it's going to be destabilizing. You may find that you can use the James Madison could have put a whole lot more recess appointments and than you would have ever imagined. But it's also exhilarating. And why, if you're trying to preserve the country, would you make arguments against that? Why wouldn't you be making arguments for it? That's one of the reasons we just put out a five page paper. We'll put out a 40 page paper. Next to this is the constitutional grounds for recess appointments of we haven't just President Trump hasn't decided to do it, but if he does, he will be in the same vein as our founders.

Tucker [00:37:45] It's a little weird. And again, you haven't. Well, as of right now, since November 18th, you've not been nominated? No. Yeah, I think it will be. I hope so. But you haven't been. So I don't want put you in an awkward spot, because if you are, you're going to have to deal with this. But why would Mitch McConnell still as Senate leader of Republicans, why would he say we're not doing recess appointments again?

Russ Vought [00:38:09] I can't I haven't spoken to Senator McConnell on it. My guess is that the Senate is going to want to know the argument. And and they probably have been told and may have been told. And I'm going to just keep it as positive as possible that this is inappropriate. You can't do it. And I want to show them, no, in fact, you can. It is entirely appropriate and to win the argument. And then if you win the argument and then people are like, no, we don't want to do this, then it's a different matter, right? It's like it just kind of reveals that they're they're not actually on board with those particular nominees going into office. And that's a different issue. So I think that we don't know yet whether that will the Senate have an issue? I mean, to some extent, the Senate knows it has an issue because they couldn't move these nominees fast enough in the first term because the Democrats were filibustering everyone. Right. And so and then, by the way, you know, a lot of these hearings and you read the history books and people got approved by the Senate in their day, you know, like the system wasn't meant to be this slow. And it has been bogged down and slowed down. And we'll see. You know, Senator Thune, Majority Leader Thune will have a chance to put his own imprint on the Senate. And I want to see how he does.

Tucker [00:39:32] Yeah, I've got, you know, high expectations. Low hopes. Hope I'm wrong. It'd be one thing if the outcome was positive, if the country was thriving. You know, you say, okay, this system's dysfunctional, but you don't really need a lot of change right now, so that's fine. But the outcome is not positive at all. It's total destruction of the country we grew up in, so we got to fix it. Why would you want to enter back into this?

Russ Vought [00:39:53] Well, you know, I've always said the last four years I would never want to miss out on another chance to be at the president's side. I find in him to be someone who's so uniquely situated for the moment. And you go back and I've done some reading on this, you go back and read some of the Federalist Papers and they actually designed the system for someone like him whose his his interests would align with the country's interests to such an extent to which he it actually works. Like separation of powers is meant to have strong, opinionated conviction, a leadership that go as fast as they can and hard as they can in the direction and for the system to then have true separation of powers. Right. An example of that is, is what he's proposing on recess appointments. If the Constitution allows you to do it, why wouldn't you do it if it's in your interest? And then let's see what Congress does in response to that. But that's real separation of powers. It's not like this kind of fake for, you know, fourth Branch administrative state where none of it works and it's all kind of cartel behind the scene where all you get is kind of different parts of each of the branch coming together almost as a blob. And I, I think he's so unique in terms of being a historical, transparent, transformative person that we can actually save the country. And that's really what it comes down to. The hours late. It's 1159. It's not too late, but it's really late. And this isn't an election where you can just have seesaw as well will be up and you'll be down. Now we we if we don't win in and he's won an electoral mandate, now it's time to actually execute. If we if we don't execute, we may never have this chance again. And so you have the president who's ready to go now. You need know how people who can do that and do it with the attacks that are coming. And they will come. Right. They they will come hardest at the people that they believe are the greatest threats. And but but that's what the president needs. The president needs those types of people or he's not going to be successful and the country won't be saved. And I just I think that it's incumbent on those of us who have that skill set, who have have had the experiences we've had, You know, we're put here for a reason. We're here because we God has given us a particular purpose for a particular time. And it's incumbent us to be responsible with those moments that we're given. So I don't know what the future holds. I don't know if I serve or if I continue at my center to to be championing the ideas that he's working on. I'm happy with both of those scenarios. But it's incumbent on us to to to to give everything we can to be successful in this moment, because I don't think we will get another moment like this.

Tucker [00:42:52] And if you doubt how serious the opposition is to the public, not just to Trump, but to the majority of the country that voted for Trump, they're trying to leave him with World War Three on the way out. Yeah, I can't imagine a more desperate or evil thing for Tony Blinken, who I think is desperate and evil, in my view, to do leave him with a war, a lame duck president trying to start a war with the world's largest nuclear power, Russia. What do you make of that?

Russ Vought [00:43:22] It's incredibly insidious. And then add to the fact that you can't put two sentences together and he's largely not in control of his own government. And so you have almost an unelected president with individuals behind the scenes that are doing this. It doesn't surprise me, though. I mean, these are the same people that have weaponized the Department of Justice, have the lawfare. I have a colleague of mine, Jeff Clark, who, you know, has they're trying to disbar him because of the the care that he had on behalf of the president to deal with voter integrity and election fraud after 2020. And so the system has thrown everything at the warriors that are on the field. You're seeing that with Tulsi, You've seen that with Matt Gates. I mean, why why is all of this stuff being thrown at him? Slander.

Tucker [00:44:13] Asli Can I just say I thought I'm starting to grasp, but since you mention Gates, we don't even accuse. Look, the DOJ leaked that he was a child sex trafficker. Okay? So at that point, they have a moral, I would say, legal obligation at. Charge him for child sex trafficking and prove in court. And if they can't shut the F up. But they didn't do that. They did not leak that Matt Gaetz, a guy they didn't like, his views were a threat to them, is a child sex trafficker. The Minnesota ID hang in the air and all their repulsive little minions like Joe Scarborough, like he's a child sex trafficker. You want to live in a world of the secret? Police can just slander you through the media.

Russ Vought [00:44:55] Like what I read in my Bible this morning, that you don't believe something unless 2 or 3 people are witnesses and say and there is none of that. And in fact.

Tucker [00:45:05] Let's Mosaic Law right.

Russ Vought [00:45:06] In there. And in fact, the the weaponized Department of Justice said we don't have the proof to pursue these allegations.

Tucker [00:45:13] I know.

Russ Vought [00:45:14] And so then you read the stuff.

Tucker [00:45:16] They accused him of it.

Russ Vought [00:45:17] They accuse it. They make the case. The reporter said, read it this morning, and then they say it should be known that Matt Gates denies that these allegations occurred. Of course, he denies it because they're not true in the Department of Justice. There's no accounting of the fact that these things have been proven not to be the not to be true. And yet people and there's a tendency on our side and this is very troubling, it's not just the left, which is kind of state regime propaganda. There is a tendency on our side to believe that if there's smoke, there must be fire. Why do we do that? Why do we why does our side why does Republican congressmen, Republican senators believe that where there must be smoke, there must be fire only because this person has been a confrontational, courageous conviction leader and a true generational talent, I might add.

Tucker [00:46:08] So that's that. The last point is indisputable. That's just a fact. I mean, Gates is the most articulate member of Congress. It's not even close. Right. So they hate him for that because he's a danger. My explanation, of course, I've noticed that Republicans believe most of what they're told. Part of it is I think there's an IQ gap, if I'm just being honest. Part of it is they believe in the system and Democrats don't believe in the system at all. They don't believe in any system that curtails their power, basically. But Republicans really believe in it to their great credit. And so they're like, well, it's the DOJ. I mean, it's kind of corrupt on the margins, you know what I mean? There are some bad apples, but most of them are really great. Really? Why, when the great ones resigned, Right. Right. I don't I don't think there's any evidence are mostly great at all. I think they're really dangerous, heavily armed. Maybe that's the answer.

Russ Vought [00:46:58] I think that is fundamental is twofold. I think the left is made up of revolutionaries for sure.

Tucker [00:47:05] Right.

Russ Vought [00:47:06] And, you know, they're Marxist When if you've read witnesses, everyone knows that, right? Like that. That's not a new phenomena. It's become militarized over and over again.

Tucker [00:47:16] This is written in like 1955, correct?

Russ Vought [00:47:18] Yeah, Right. So now now what that looks like is not someone who's a behind the scenes spy. Now that looks like, you know, some of their members of Congress, right? Like an AOC. They're they're Marxist revolutionaries are voting in Congress. So that's their side. And our side doesn't really grapple with that. We don't make every decision realizing like that's what they think and that's what they're doing. So I'm not going to listen to what they just kind of chitchat, conversation. I'm going to to govern and make decisions based on what I know they are pursuing. No, your enemy. Secondly, we do have trust in kind of the media and the institutions like Tony Fauci can't be lying, right? You can't really he must not have been doing gain of function research if he said he wasn't it. He's Tony Fauci. Right. Like that's what we were up against. And it's totally.

Tucker [00:48:12] True.

Russ Vought [00:48:13] And that is the wrong you got to have a skepticism of all of these people and their institutions and their bureaucracies.

Tucker [00:48:24] Okay. What needs to be done. And just. Just while. Shut up. I'll stop with my stupid editorial comments. You just go through the top 3 or 4 things that you think this incoming administration, which has a rare mandate, should achieve in order.

Russ Vought [00:48:41] I believe that there's a lot of policy issues downstream the border inflation, wars across the world, all of them are downstream of one reality, and that is we don't the American people currently are not in control of their government. And the president hasn't been either. And so we have to solve that. We have to solve the woke in the weaponized bureaucracy and and have the president take control of the executive branch. So my belief for anyone who wants to listen is that you you have to the president has to move executively as fast and as aggressively as possible with a radical constitutional perspective to be able to dismantle that bureaucracy in their power centers. And I think there are a couple of ways to do it. Number one is going after the whole notion of independence. There are no independent agencies. Congress may have viewed them as such. SEC. Or the FCC, CFP, the whole alphabet soup. But that isn't that is not something that the Constitution understands. So there may be different strategies with each one of them about how you dismantle them. But as an administration, the whole notion of an independent agency should be thrown out, particularly with the Department of Justice, in which there is literally no law. All it is, is precedent from the Watergate era that the attorney general and those lawyers don't work for the president.

Tucker [00:50:12] And who do they work for?

Russ Vought [00:50:14] They think that they work for themselves. They think if they are, they.

Tucker [00:50:17] Have the power to kill people just because they awarded themselves that power, the power to kill people. I mean.

Russ Vought [00:50:22] They believe that they have the power for for all of the the prosecutions and that the president doesn't get a say in any of that and that we have to go at that as hard as we possibly can, whether that's the military. We have a whole military industrial complex of generals in Tommy Tuberville kind of expose this this last year with a fight about life. But it really became a fight about whether we have a essentially a military that is not subject to civilian leadership. So you can apply the concept of of of destroying independence. And every agency I even saw it in aspects of OMB with regard to who gets to make the decisions on on statistics. Right. Like there are little pockets of independence that have to be just you got to we got to remove those, Right. They're unconstitutional.

Tucker [00:51:16] Number two, would you include the Fed in that?

Russ Vought [00:51:20] So I am not a huge fan of the Fed. I can't I can't look at the Constitution and the massive decades long decisions that they have made. Totally undemocratic and and see that that is a place where there deserves to be an exception.

Tucker [00:51:38] For I don't even understand who controls the Fed. I mean, and where does their authority come from, God? Do they are they speaking directly to God? Like, what is this?

Russ Vought [00:51:47] No, because they're wrong and they've been wrong.

Tucker [00:51:49] You know.

Russ Vought [00:51:50] For decades. Right, Right.

Tucker [00:51:51] Let's go to zero interest rates for 11 years, see what.

Russ Vought [00:51:53] Happens and see what happens. So President Trump hasn't run on that. And so I'm not going to speak.

Tucker [00:51:58] But I'm just.

Russ Vought [00:51:59] Interested.

Tucker [00:51:59] You've looked into the question of what authority does the Constitution bestow and to whom? No.

Russ Vought [00:52:05] And I'll give you an example. If you go on if you are watching news you're going to have seen in the last two years ads saying oppose the Fed's regulations on Capital Bank capital. Right. Well, who are they supposed to call if they're not calling a congressman? Congressman, it has no power. The issue is like the call to action is against the Fed. Well, sorry, you're kind of out of luck.

Tucker [00:52:32] And what you what's what's the lever we would use to influence the lever?

Russ Vought [00:52:35] Right. And so they they have existed with this notion that they have this priestly ability to make decisions. And in fact, I don't actually think they're that good at it. I think people like President Trump are, in fact, better at it. And there's no reason that they should be exempt from the normal democratic process. And if Congress wants to come along and pass rules, it says, you know, this is how we want the money supply to go, all of that is in their purview. But I think, you know, this is not some exception to the rule, Doesn't mean in any way that, you know, President Trump has any interest in doing anything in this area. But I don't think it I don't think it's the exception that proves the rule on independence being something that is important downstream to the CDC, the new age. I think everything that people like Bobby Kennedy. They have been running on and others is about no, you're not some priestly role. You are politicians yourselves. You just don't have to face voters. Right. So independence is, I think, first and foremost. Number two, bring back the notion of empowerment. And this is something that of way of empowerment, the ability to not spend money for 200 years, presidents had the ability to not spend a congressional appropriation. That has always been the constitutional system. It had been brought it had been a paradigm that had been brought from from the UK in how we understood the constitutional principle is certainly the power of the purse means that Congress gets to set the ceiling. You can't spend without a congressional appropriation, but you weren't ever meant to be forced to spend it, and it has become a floor. So 200 years presidents are using empowerment. They get money for something, president says. I don't think it's a good idea or I certainly can do it better. Or I have events that are happening overseas that caused me not to want to spend on the gunboat when I want to get some treaty done, all manner of executive decision making that would be a part of that in to in the in the 1970s, at the lowest moment of the presidency, Congress steps in and to some extent the courts and say they passed the the Empowerment Control Act, which was really the Empowerment Elimination Act. And in that from that moment, they had destroyed separation of powers on spending and on fiscal issues. But it was beyond that. It wasn't just about dollars and cents. It was about control of the bureaucracy.

Tucker [00:54:59] So that law effectively meant the executive branch. The president's agencies have to spend every dollar they're sent by the Congress.

Russ Vought [00:55:09] Correct. And and and I believe as a budget guy, that was the original sin on why we can't do anything fiscally from that moment on. It's also why we get omnibus bills because if I only need you to get my your signature and I lose all of my ability to throughout the rest of the fiscal year to push and pull and not spend and have to make different decisions. I just got to get your one signature. So I'm going to put everything in that one bill, right. Thousands of pages and I'm going to push it through at the most the hardest time for you politically. You might have some diplomatic visit that you're taking on.

Tucker [00:55:46] Yeah, totally.

Russ Vought [00:55:46] And so empowerment is vitally important not just to save the country fiscally. It is vitally important to be able to wrest control of the bureaucracy because when you combine Congress giving the agencies vast authority to interpret the laws that they passed, overly broad, make law, essentially make law, essentially, that has no repercussions on the people who voted it right. They don't have to vote on what the right blending is for ethanol. Right. And then you say that your funding is going for Congress and the president has no ability. Sorry, Mr. President, you don't have to. That's illegal. You can't you can't turn off my funding now. Congress, Imperial Congress still exists. Just a lot more subtle. So that's number two. Bring back empowerment. Number three is is dramatically going at restoring at will employment as as far as you can a lot of ideas on the on the on the on the on the agenda.

Tucker [00:56:44] Can we go back to empowerment really super quick. So what was the idea during Watergate of forcing the president to spend all the money the Congress sends him? Like, why would you want that?

Russ Vought [00:56:56] You only want it from the standpoint of control of you want to be able to say you're going to spend what I tell you and spend, that it is nothing more than an institutional desire to force the president to spend X amount of money. But again, it's never just about that. It's always about where they have tried to innovated from really the progressive era, like they wanted congressional government. That was the that was the the the title of Woodrow Wilson's book. He wanted a system where essentially the agencies largely worked out of the Congress or associated with Congress, not unlike what you would see in the House of Commons, right. Where their cabinet lives, in their house of parliament. And it's largely, you know, the monarch, the executive over times becomes toothless. That's essentially what they have wanted and have pursued at every turn here. And you saw that on steroids with them using the events of Watergate to promulgate new paradigms and ways of of binding the constitutional system from working. So everything post-Watergate is largely you can just make an assumption it's not the way it was meant to work. And so you have our guys defending post-Watergate paradigms instead of trying to think through, okay, let's go back, let's go back to what the founders would have actually envisioned.

Tucker [00:58:23] Amazing. Okay. So to your third point. Thank you for this. By the way, switch your third point that the president has to be able to fire people who are subverting democracy. Why can't he? How did federal bureaucrats wind up with a kind of super tenure where no matter what they do, you can't get rid of them? Like I don't understand. They work for the public, right?

Russ Vought [00:58:49] Laws that have been passed perhaps not challenged, that laws that have been passed that give them bargaining power, that give them certain processes that have to be followed before they can be dismissed. But I think in that and it's certainly made it very, very hard, hard to hire and fire, the current system needs to be changed, but it also can be used to deal with these same kind of actors if you're willing to do it. And I don't want to get into all of the tools that are available right now, but they exist. You know, one of them is the, you know, the reduction in force. I mean, you you can and Vivek has talked about this. I mean, you can proceed on the basis of what is good for the efficiency and the effectiveness of the agency to be able to dramatically lower at a a macro level the size of the workforce. And that will give you certain legal abilities to begin to move people off of the payroll. So there's a lot of things that are being creatively discussed in this space, but it has to be front and center schedule after the President Trump has already run on. That seems to be like a day one thing he has already instituted in his first term. We just didn't get

Show less