Washington Wednesday: Reforming government and military priorities

LINDSAY MAST, HOST: It’s Wednesday the 11th of December.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Lindsay Mast.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

Time now for Washington Wednesday.

Today, culture war issues in the 2025 defense budget.

But first, what members of Congress think about President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for the DOGE…the Department of Government Efficiency.

MAST: Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been tapped to lead the new non-governmental task force. They were on Capitol Hill last week to talk about it.

Washington Bureau reporter Leo Briceno has the story.

LEO BRICENO: Elon Musk and Vivek Ramswamy came to Capitol Hill not to lecture, but to listen. That’s according to South Dakota Congressman Dusty Johnson.

JOHNSON: They each spoke for about one minute and then they just opened it up. And members have been offering some specific ideas about where can we go to make a more efficient government.

Congressman Johnson said the room quickly went through around nine topics…including technology.

JOHNSON: There’s some areas where the federal government is not utilizing technology well enough, and that that’s an area where clearly the federal government lags behind the private sector. And it’s one area where the private sector has been able to find some pretty substantial efficiencies.

So how will two businessmen from the private sector make changes in the federal government? And how much will President Trump have to rely on Congress to make the cuts he’s promised?

Lawmakers are still figuring that out. Here’s Congressman Aaron Bean from Florida. He’s the Chair of the newly-formed DOGE Caucus.

AARON BEAN: We just want to be assists. That’s my first question. What can Congress do, what do you expect from Congress, how can we help and assist with you.

And it’s not just Republicans. Here’s Florida Congressman Jared Moskowitz, one of the Democrats who will be on the DOGE subcommittee panel next year.

MOSKOWITZ: It’s a wonderful question… It's probably better suited to a historian.

So, I asked one…David Lewis, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. Lewis studies the presidency and its relationship with government agencies.

DAVID LEWIS: There’s a little bit of disagreement about this actually. One thing that everybody is clear on is that if the president could get congress’ cooperation, they could slash government as much as they would like, right? They could fire employees, eliminate agencies, these kinds of things. But I think your question is short of them passing legislation, what can the president do?

Come January, President Trump will only have a few options for reducing the federal workforce on his own, without help from Congress.

LEWIS: The president doesn’t have ton of flexibility other than to freeze hiring…but they can’t start firing people and reducing the size of government because… the money has been authorized to be spent on salaries.

Trump and his team have suggested that recent Supreme Court decisions change the role of agencies in government.

LEWIS: The belief then is if these agencies are doing things that they should not be doing then the employees should stop working on these things. And if these employees have no work, they could be removed though a reduction in force.

Lewis says it’s an interesting legal theory: the responsibilities of agencies have shrunk, so should their workforce. But that argument hasn’t been tested yet.

If that strategy faces too many legal challenges, Congress could delegate some government-shrinking power to the president. Back in 1939, Congress passed a “Reorganization” Act that authorized then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to trim and modify executive branch agencies.

I asked Georgia Congresswoman Marjory Taylor Greene about that approach…she’s leading the House DOGE subcommittee panel.

GREENE: Um, I haven’t specifically talked about that, no.

Other House Republicans would prefer to keep Congress in the driver’s seat. Here’s Congressman Bean again.

BEAN: I’m a big fan of Congress appropriating money and unappropriating money. I think that should stay. We are directly accountable to the people. But where we can assist in making government leaner, more efficient that’s where we want to have the debate.

In that case, professor Lewis says there’s a third option: by giving the president’s priorities special status inside the legislative process, lawmakers could fast-track collaboration with the White House.

LEWIS: Some sort of reorganization proposal supported by the president would get some privileged process in congress—you know votes, up or down, get to the top of the list in terms of agenda. Something like that is feasible. But it would still have to be legislation, it would just happen through a quicker process.

In any case, President Trump will need Congress on board to approve the massive changes he has in mind. And with the conversations already started, Congressman Dusty Johnson believes the process is off to a good start.

DUSTY JOHNSON: It is remarkable how coordinated the efforts between the legislative branch and the incoming executive branch have been. I think we have an acute understanding that this is a team sport and that if we get mired in the standard ‘one branch of government versus another branch of government’ fighting—we’re not going to get done what we need to get done.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Leo Briceno.

MAST: Many are looking ahead to the next Congress, but there’s still a lot to do in the final weeks of this session. That includes approving next year’s defense spending.

EICHER: The bill contains plenty that Republicans and Democrats agree on, but also some they don’t.

Here’s WORLD’s Carolina Lumetta.

CAROLINA LUMETTA: Lawmakers have just two weeks to pass the National Defense Reauthorization Act. That’s the annual mandatory legislation that determines defense policy for the next fiscal year. The bill has been through a few iterations so far, and on Tuesday, the House Rules Committee discussed a compromise version.

FISCHBACH: The Rules Committee will come to order…

They’re calling it the “Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement” act. The proposed 2025 NDAA rings in at nearly $900 billion dollars. Earlier this year, the Senate passed its own version, but it exceeded spending caps set by the Fiscal Responsibility Act. The House version falls within the limits but also provides a 14 percent pay raise for junior service members.

LANGWORTHY: I'm thrilled at the pay raise for our troops. I think that's the most important thing that we're accomplishing here.

Congressman Nick Langworthy of New York told WORLD the bill also gives military families more housing options and implements shorter wait times for healthcare.

LANGWORTHY: Is it perfect? No. But it continues to help our military where it matters the most, which is recruitment and showing our appreciation for the men and women to keep this country safe and defend our freedom.

Where lawmakers disagree is on non-defense policies in the legislation.

Democrats say they will not support the bill because it includes a provision that prevents the military health program TRICARE, from providing puberty blockers and other transgender procedures to minors. Here’s Washington state Congressman Adam Smith:

SMITH: There is a provision that would bar access to health care for minors of service members, for very specific care. It goes after treatment for minors suffering from gender dysphoria.

Smith helped negotiate this version of the NDAA but urged Rules Committee members to amend the bill to allow body-altering procedures aimed at sex-change.

SMITH: To deny what could potentially be life-saving health care to children of service members for any political reason is something I don't believe we should do.

Democrats on the Rules Committee argued that the policy measure could result in service members leaving to find coverage for these treatments elsewhere. Republicans said it’s not an issue for defense policy consideration. Here’s Texas Congressman Chip Roy during the hearing.

ROY: I think these questions need to be pulled out of the debate of defense so we can get back to the business of defending the United States of America without having to deal with social engineering debates.

The Republican majority on the Rules Committee shot down two proposed amendments, and voted to pass the bill on to the floor.

FISCHBACH: Without objection, the committee is adjourned.

While most Republicans support the negotiated NDAA, conservatives had hoped to increase defense spending while cutting social programs. Instead, the compromise version keeps funding levels about the same as the last one. Congressman Roy has an additional concern.

ROY: …it doesn't get rid of the chief diversity officer. The DEI provision is not as strong as what we had in the House…

Roy told WORLD that worries him.

ROY: I mean, I'll reserve judgment on the floor, but I don't see myself voting for the bill.

In order to pass the legislation by a simple majority, House Speaker Mike Johnson can only afford to lose four Republican votes, assuming all Democrats oppose it. On Tuesday, he praised the final package during a news conference.

JOHNSON: This year’s NDAA ensures our military has the resources and the capabilities needed to remain the most powerful fighting force on the planet. I look forward to voting for it later this week, and I think you’ll have a large vote on the House floor in affirmation of all of this.

The bill will come to the floor for a vote on Thursday. After that, it’s back to the Senate before heading to the president’s desk.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Carolina Lumetta in Washington.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.