关注我们，欢迎转发留言，右上角点击“在看”～ 

在美国建国之初，我们的国家基于这样一个基本理念：由我们选举出来的人运行政府。但美国今天的运作方式不是这样。大多数法令不是国会颁布的法律，而是由非选举官僚颁布的“规章制度”——每年有成千上万的规章制度出台，给纳税人带来直接和间接的巨大成本。幸运的是，我们有一个历史性的机会来解决这个问题。11月5日，选民们果断选择唐纳德·特朗普出任下一任总统，并授予他实施彻底变革的权力。选民们有权要求一场变革。

当选总统特朗普要求我们带领新成立的政府效率部（简称DOGE），给联邦政府瘦身。根深蒂固且日益膨胀的官僚体系对我们的共和国构成生死攸关的威胁，而政客们长期以来都在助长这一势头。我们的行事方式将有别于他们。我们是企业家，不是政客。我们将以外部志愿者的身份行事，而非联邦官员或雇员。与政府委员会或咨询委员会不同，我们不只是写写报告，给活动剪剪彩。我们将削减成本。

我们将协助特朗普过渡团队，寻找并雇用一支精干的、由小政府倡导者组成的团队，美国一些最优秀的技术和法律人才将被纳入麾下。在新政府中，这个团队将与白宫管理和预算办公室密切合作。我们会在每一环节向政府效率部提供建议，以期在三个主要方面推进改革：撤销监管、精简行政机构和节约成本。我们将尤其注重以现有立法为基础，通过行政措施来推动变革，而不是颁布新的法律。我们的改革将以美国宪法为准绳，并主要以最高法院在拜登总统任期内发布的两项重要裁决为依据。

在“西弗吉尼亚州诉环境保护局案”中，法官们认为，除非国会明确授权，否则机构不能颁布事关重大经济或政策问题的法规。在“洛珀·布莱特公司诉雷蒙多案”中，最高法院推翻了“雪佛龙原则”，认为联邦法院不应再尊重联邦行政机关对法律的解释或这些机构自行制定规章的权力。这两项案例表明，太多的现行联邦法规超出了国会依法授予的权力。

政府效率部将向总统提交法规清单，他可以下达行政命令立即暂停这些法规的执行，并启动审查和撤销程序。这将把个人和企业从国会从未通过的非法法规中解放出来，并刺激美国经济。

联邦法规的大幅减少为整个联邦官僚体系的大规模裁员提供合理的逻辑。政府效率部打算与各机构内部人员合作，确定各机构履行宪法赋予的以及法律规定的职能所需的最低雇员人数。联邦雇员的削减规模至少应该与被废除的联邦法规的数量成正比。被解雇的员工应该受到尊重，效率部的目标是帮助他们过渡到私营部门。总统可以利用现有法律制定鼓励他们提前退休的措施，并设立自愿遣散费，以帮助他们体面地离职。

最后，我们专注于为纳税人节省成本。效率部也将瞄准那部分未得到国会授权或未按照国会意图使用的超过5000亿美元年度联邦支出，以帮助结束联邦超支。

联邦政府的采购程序漏洞百出。许多联邦合同已多年未经审查。如果我们暂停付款并进行大规模审计，将节省大量开支。五角大楼最近连续第七次未能通过审计，表明五角大楼领导层对其8000多亿美元年度预算的使用情况几乎一无所知。批评人士声称，如果不对联邦医疗保险和医疗补助计划等福利项目动刀，我们就无法显著减少联邦赤字，而缩减这些项目开支需要国会批准。但这是一种转移视线，令人们忽视了被浪费、欺诈和滥用的金额之巨。

我们对效率部的最高目标是：在2026年7月4日之前消除这个部门存在的必要性，这是我们为项目设定的截止日期。在建国250周年之际，奉上一个让我们的开国元勋感到自豪的联邦政府——对我们的国家来说，再也没有比这更好的生日礼物了。

 英文原文 
Our country is built on the basic idea that the people we elect to run the government are the ones we edict. But that's not the case in America today. Most of the provisions of the law are not laws enacted by Congress, but "rules and regulations" enacted by unelected bureaucrats... there are tens of thousands of rules and regulation every year. Most of the government's law enforcement decisions and discretionary spending are made not by the elected president or even his politically appointed officials, but by the millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants in government agencies who believe they will not be fired because of the protections of the civil service.

This approach is anti-democratic and runs counter to the vision of the Founding Fathers. It imposes significant direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to address this. On November 5, voters decisively elected Trump and authorized him to make sweeping changes that they (taxpayers) deserve.

President Trump asked the two of us to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency.Of Government Efficiency, DOGE- Also known as the Office of Government Efficiency) to reduce the size of the federal government. The entrenched, ballooning bureaucracy poses an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have tolerated it for a long time. That's why we're taking a different approach. We're entrepreneurs, not politicians. We are outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government committees or advisory committees, we don't just write reports or cut ribbons. We're going to cut costs.

We are assisting the Trump transition team in identifying and hiring a lean team of small government reform fighters, including some of the nation's brightest technical and legal talent. The team will work closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget in the new administration. The two of us will advise the Office of Government Efficiency at every step to implement three broad categories of reform: deregulation, administrative reduction, and cost savings. We will place particular emphasis on promoting reform through executive action based on existing legislation rather than through the enactment of new laws. The polar star of our reform will be the Constitution of the United States, focusing on two important Supreme Court decisions during his tenure.

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies cannot enforce regulations that involve significant economic or policy issues unless Congress expressly authorizes them. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the Court overturned the Chevron principle, holding that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies' interpretation of the law or to their own rulemaking. Together, these cases demonstrate that a large number of existing federal regulations go beyond the authority given by Congress by law.

The Office of Government Efficiency will work with legal experts in government agencies to apply these rulings to federal regulations created by those agencies, with the help of advanced technology. The Office of Government Efficiency will present the list of regulations to President Donald Trump, who can immediately suspend their implementation through executive action and initiate a review and repeal process. This would free individuals and businesses from illegal regulations that Congress never passed, and stimulate the American economy.

When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics accuse the executive of overstepping his authority. In fact, this is correcting executive overreach, i.e. the thousands of regulations enacted through executive orders that were never authorized by Congress. The president should obey Congress when legislating, not bureaucrats within federal agencies. Using executive orders to add cumbersome new rules to replace legislation is a violation of the Constitution, but using executive order to repeal statutes that wrongly circumvent Congress is legal and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's recent authorization. And, after these regulations have been fully repealed, future presidents cannot simply press the switch to restore them, but will have to ask Congress to do so.

The drastic cuts in federal regulations provide a reasonable industry logic for mass layoffs across the federal bureaucracy. The Office of Government Efficiency intends to work with agencies' in-house appointees to determine the minimum number of employees required for an agency to perform constitutionally permitted and statutory functions. The number of federal employees cut should be at least proportional to the number of federal statutes repealed: Not only will fewer employees be needed to enforce fewer statutes, but the agency will create fewer of them once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose jobs have been eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and the Government Efficiency Office aims to help them transition into the private sector. The president could use existing laws to encourage them to retire early and pay voluntary severance payments to facilitate their dignified departure.

Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil service protections prevent the president and even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the regulations allow for "laying off" that does not target specific employees. The statute further authorizes the president to "develop rules governing competitive services." This power is very broad. Previous presidents have used this power to amend civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court ruled in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they were not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act when they did so. With this authority, President Trump could curb the excesses of the executive branch by implementing a variety of "rules governing competitive services," from mass firings to relocating federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to work in the office five days a week will lead to a wave of voluntary departures, which we welcome: if federal employees don't want to work, American taxpayers shouldn't pay them the privilege of staying home in the age of the coronavirus.

Finally, we are committed to cost savings for the taxpayer. Skeptics question how much federal spending the Office of Government Efficiency can control with administrative means alone. They point out that the Appropriations Control Act of 1974 prevents the president from halting spending authorized by Congress. President Trump has previously said the bill is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court is likely to uphold his view on this issue. But even without relying on this view, the Office of Government Efficiency will help end federal overspending by targeting more than $500 billion a year in federal spending that Congress did not authorize or used in ways that Congress never intended. From $535. million a year for public broadcasters and $1.5 billion in grants to international organizations, to nearly $300 million for progressive groups such as family planning.

The federal government's procurement process is also deeply flawed. Many federal contracts have gone unreviewed for years. Large-scale audits during the suspension of payments could result in significant financial savings. The Pentagon recently failed an audit for the seventh time in a row, suggesting that the agency's leadership knows almost nothing about how its more than $800 billion annual budget is spent. Critics claim that we can't effectively and meaningfully close the federal deficit without targeting entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid that Congress needs to shrink. However, this diverts attention from waste, fraud and abuse, which almost all taxpayers want to end, and the Office of Government Efficiency aims to save taxpayers immediately by identifying precise administrative measures to address them.
With a decisive electoral mandate and the Supreme Court's 6: 3 conservative majority, the Office of Government Efficiency has a historic opportunity to make structural cuts to the federal government. We are ready to deal with a shock from entrenched interests in Washington. We look forward to winning. Now is the time for decisive action. Our primary goal for the Office of Government Efficiency is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026... the deadline we set for the project. On the 250th anniversary of our founding, there is no better birthday present than building a federal government that our founding fathers are proud of.