Trump and Musk are building a new spoils system

When ideological targeting becomes cronyism

A basic democratic norm is that laws are implemented as they are written. Another norm is that the implementation of the law be even-handed, applied equally to all groups. The idea that some groups would become less eligible for public support or fired from their job simply because of their presumed partisan affiliation feels obviously undemocratic.

And so, we are appalled at reports that Trump was less willing to provide emergency support to parts of the country that lean blue. But increasingly, this is our government now.

Reluctant Republicans were persuaded to vote for a continuing resolution for a budget they dislike because the appropriations, as passed, will never be implemented. Instead, the President will withhold spending to recraft appropriations to fit his own priorities.

Lets just pause to reflect on how far beyond the looking glass we are. Trump, via Musk, is engaged in impoundment, which is illegal and unconstitutional. It also vastly weakens Congress. And yet, the Trump pitch to get Congress to pass appropriations is that he will ignore what they actually pass! Impoundment is a feature, not a bug, in their model for governing.

No member of Congress should support an illegal theory of governing that strips them of their power. No member of Congress should vote for a bill unless they are promised that the bill will be implemented as written. Breaking such promises should trigger Congress to use its oversight powers, all the way to impeachment.

This is all pretty straightforward checks-and-balances stuff. You protect your institutional power, or you become irrelevant, as does the US model for governing. In recent years, the Supreme Court has significantly limited the ability of Presidents and executive branch officials to interpret laws in ways that overstep Congressional intent, via the major questions doctrine and revoking the Chevron doctrine. It remains to be seen if SCOTUS will allow Trump to completely ignore the laws on impoundment, but there is no reason why Congress should.

So why are Republicans going along with Trump’s promises to ignore their appropriations. Many genuinely want to cut government, and don’t care about the means. But they also, like every politician, want to claim credit and minimize blame. Recall all of the Republicans who opposed Biden’s infrastructure bill, and then touted spending in their jurisdiction. So what gives?

Republicans in Congress are not being told that their appropriations will be ignored: they are being told that appropriations will be selectively ignored, and they will be protected.

DOGE is accepting requests from Republican officials to reverse cuts in their jurisdictions. It is a form of spoils system in reverse: your pet projects will be spared from elimination. CNN describes the pattern:

Republican lawmakers are enjoying more access – and having more success – in their attempts to convince the White House to reverse cuts to certain programs and workers, while Democrats are largely striking out. Even in cases where they are advocating for the same thing, Republicans are able to leverage entry points into Trump administration in ways that Democrats simply can’t, leaving them in the dark on many of the recent reversals the administration has agreed to.

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole said Friday that “after working closely” with the Trump administration and DOGE, he was able to keep open offices in his district that provide key Social Security, health care and weather services that had been at risk of shutting down. Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford of Nevada told CNN that when DOGE moved to end a Social Security services location in his district, he wasn’t notified and didn’t have the information needed to help his constituents. “My constituents deserve the same treatment that Rep. Cole’s are receiving, but that’s not happening,” Horsford said.

This is not altogether surprising. Previous research shows that under conditions of politicization, the executive branch becomes less responsive to Congress generally, and especially to requests from members of the opposing party.

But this is not differential treatment of Congressional inquiries about constituent services. There are two important differences in what is happening now: the scale and nature of the changes the federal government ins engaged in. First, DOGE is pursuing massive unprecedented cuts to basic services. Second, the cuts also tear up previous and current agreements that Democrats and Republicans have made with each other in Congress.

Think of how these dynamics play out. Lets imagine a Republican is worried about Musk’s cuts, say in the area of Social Security. They can publicly oppose such cuts, call DOGE to testify in front of Congress, or criticize Musk. They can withhold their votes on vital bills or nominations. What happens? DOGE stops responding to them. Musk or Trump might attack them on social media, and fund a primary opponent. On the other hand, they can keep silent, provide the votes as required, and quietly ask that Musk spare the Social Security office in their district.

Of course, if you are a Democrat, one of these avenues is not open to you. Musk will not answer your calls. Senator Chris Murphy said:

I don’t get the sense that there’s any opportunity for Democrats to backchannel. The whole point of the spending freeze is to force every entity that receives federal funding to pledge their political loyalty to Donald Trump in order to get money. It’s a fundamental corruption from beginning to end.

You don’t have to be a game theorist to see how those dynamics shift power from Congress to the executive branch. The Greatest Deliberative Body in the World voluntarily becomes supplicants to the richest man in the world, humbly asking for favors and help.

This is also a model of cronyism and spoils, where your access to public services depends upon party affiliation. Over time, residents who live in blue areas, with Democratic representatives, experience more and more cuts to public services.

To be clear, Republican voters are still worse off under this equilibrium. Their representatives are seeking, hat in hand, exceptions from a broader pattern of a reduced public services. The aggregate outcome is still less services, and not all requests for exceptions will be granted.

The new spoils system is partly about where money will be spent, but also about who gets to hold onto their public sector job. The pattern of ideological targeting is already occurring in public sector firings, even before Republican members of Congress have a chance to plead their case. The Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica tracked the volume of DOGE layoffs on a left right ideological map of agencies.¹

Here is how Bonica described the results:

The negative coefficient for ideology (-0.230) confirms that agencies perceived as more liberal (lower scores on the ideological scale) face significantly higher probabilities of layoffs. In fact, it is by far the strongest predictor. Agency size had no significant effect, while budget had only a modest influence…The targeting isn't random. The hardest-hit agencies are precisely those that regulate industry, protect public health, and expand access to education. Meanwhile, conservative-leaning agencies remain largely untouched. If efficiency were truly the goal, we would expect an even spread across the ideological spectrum. Instead, we see a clear ideological bias.

Bonica’s assessment should be viewed as preliminary, since there will be multiple rounds of layoffs that follow. But it would be foolish not to look at the ideological patterning of cuts when it comes to agencies, programs and constituencies. It is also consistent with reports of purges, where individuals or groups that are viewed as disloyal or suspect are subject to leaves or firings, and where human capital processes are increasingly political. The administration wants to turn the Chief Human Capital Officers of every agency into political appointees. It also envisions a role where DOGE controls who is hired after cuts are completed.

This is not the 19th century spoils system built just on quid pro quos; it is also about destroying perceived enemy capacities. A Republican familiar with Musk’s downsizing plans told Wired: “You know none of this is about saving money, right? It’s all about destroying a liberal power base.”

For example, keep an eye also on which universities are targeted for cuts. After removing $400 million from Columbia, the White House announced a $100 million cut in US Department of Agriculture funds to the University of Maine system — mostly directed on research and outreach that benefits rural communities — after Trump clashed with the Governor over her refusal to accept policies that would exclude transgender athletes from sports.

There are just a few aspects of the new spoils system and the corruption it breeds. A whole other topic is the defanging of government oversight of contracts (e.g., the closing of 18F) and private businesses (e.g., the gutting of CFPB), while private businesses are paying up to five million dollars to meet and curry favor with Trump.

In short: Trump and Musk are engaged in a broad-based downsizing of government, using that downsizing to selectively target their enemies, while expanding their political power by trading exceptions to the downsizing.

1. It might seem odd to classify organizations as having an ideological identity, but this is a standard and useful way of modeling how politicians treat agencies and how agencies respond. There are multiple ways of measuring agency ideology, but more liberal agencies tend to have more of a redistributive focus and seek to enable liberal goals e.g., regulation of climate or markets. More conservative agencies tend to pursue more national security or pro-business missions.