Hi everyone, and welcome back to the Elon Musk Podcast.
I'm your host, Will Walden, and if you're new here, this is a
show all about Elon Musk. It is groundbreaking work that
he's doing with his various companies, including Tesla,
SpaceX, The Boring Company, Neurolink, and of course, X.
And before we dive into today's episode, I wanted to share a
quick insight from our shows analytics.
It turns out the 45% of you listening right now are
subscribed to the show and thank you for that.
But that means that 55% of you are not.
So I'm offering you a deal. I promise to do everything in my
power to keep bringing you the latest and most interesting news
about Elon Musk every single day and about his companies.
If you'll do me one favor and hit the subscribe or follow
button on your podcast platform right now, that's it.
Pretty simple and straightforward.
It takes just a second for you, but it makes a huge difference
for the show. Be able to convince them that
it's in their interest to do so. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Senator
Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Landau, I deeply appreciate
your service to this country and your willingness to come before
this committee. But I'll be honest with you, I
find it pretty offensive that you are trying to maintain that
there is some good faith review happening at USAID when the
representatives of the administration in charge of cost
cutting have made it clear that the goal is to destroy USAID.
Do you know what percentage of USAID employees have been fired
or furloughed? Senator, I I do not, I, I'm here
as a private citizen of a nominee, so I am not part of the
administration at this. Point.
So you don't have, you have a ballpark guess you're, you're,
you're, you're, you're about to help lead America's diplomatic
efforts. A ballpark guess as to how many
USAID employees have been fired or furloughed.
Again, Senator, I've just looked at the at the way the the
President has set this forth that he has put instituted a 90
day review. Period.
You haven't read reports that you might be able to cite today.
Well, I I've seen some reports again in the press, but I got, I
want to be very careful before I start acting as if I know what
is going on behind the scenes. But I'm not part of the
administration yet. Obviously if I'm confirmed, you
can call me before me for oversight before you excuse me
for oversight. Here's the so the so the number
is 94 percent, 94% of USAID staff have been fired or
essentially permanently furloughed.
And you stated to us that you believe this is a good faith 90
day review and yet you actually don't know how many people have
been fired or furloughed. How can you come to the
conclusion that this is a good faith review when you actually
don't know the extent of the terminations?
Wouldn't it be relevant as to the question as whether it was a
good faith review if 94% of the agency had already been
terminated? Well, Senator, again, I, I
don't, I, I think it's important to recognize what are the
programs and how are these people that are being fired?
With the conclusion that this is a good faith review if you don't
even know what's happening. Well, I guess, Senator.
You can't have it both ways. You can't come to the committee
and say I know this is a good faith review, but I don't know
anything that's happening because I'm not in the
administration. Well, Senator, again, I assume
the government, there's a presumption of governmental
regularity that exists generally in the law.
You know, I, you know, believe strongly that the president, you
know, wants to comply with the law, wants to make sure that we
are doing the American taxpayers bidding by looking carefully at
these programs and, and making sure that we separate the baby
from the. Bath wall.
I just don't think you can have it both ways.
I don't think you can come here and tell us that you know that
this is a good faith review, but assert that you don't have any
basic information about what's happening.
Mr. Regus, which article? Excuse me, which branch of
government has the power to decide how taxpayer money is
spent? Is it the legislative branch?
The executive branch to the judicial branch?
Thank you for the question, Senator, My question.
I don't need an explanation which.
Well, Congress has the power of the purse, the executive has the
power to make sure the laws are faithfully implemented, and the
courts arbitrate disputes between those two branches.
So if Congress is authorized a agency or a department and has
appropriated the money with the caveat that the money shall be
spent, does the administration have the obligation to spend
that money in accordance with how Congress has appropriated
the the dollars? Senator, I'm not a lawyer, but
my understanding is the executive has a role in how
those monies are spent. So to the extent that the.
So maybe so I don't, I don't so that that seems like a pretty, I
mean, and I think Republicans and Democrats on this committee
should care about the answer to this question.
That's a pretty easy one. If Congress has authorized a
function, an agency or department and has appropriated
dollars with the word shall, do you believe the executive branch
can decide not to spend those dollars?
Well, I'm familiar with like mandatory entitlement programs
which has that language and those those are on autopilot,
so. It's not a mandatory, It's not a
mandatory, It's not an entitlement program.
Congress is established. Let me give you an example.
The National Endowment for Democracy is established by law.
We appropriate every year, and we say that the dollars
appropriate in this case, $315 million shall be spent.
You're going to oversee spending at the Department of State.
Do you believe that the executive branch could choose
not to spend dollars that are appropriated by Congress with a
shall rather than I may? I don't think so, but I'm not
the ultimate arbiter of that question.
And how the money? The arbiter of that question?
You're actually being nominated for the job that would decide
how those dollars are spent. If if I think we're the the
question at hand here is how is the money on what things is the
money being spent not? Whether how that money is spent
and you're supposed to execute it.
If we say $315 million is to be spent at the National Endowment
for Democracy, do you believe that you have the ability to to
deny that money to be spent on the functions that Congress
appropriates? This is a really important
question. I don't think so, but I also
think what? That thinks so.
So what is that? You don't think so?
So yes or no? I think if that's what the law
says and that's what needs to happen, OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Chairman, thank you. Thanks for coming before the
committee today. Mr. Whitaker, I want to start
with some questions for you. We had a great meeting and I
thank you for stopping by my own.
Hey, thank you so much for listening today.
I really do appreciate your support.
If you could take a second and hit this subscribe or the follow
button on whatever podcast platform that you're listening
on right now, I greatly appreciate it.
It helps out the show tremendously and you'll never
miss an episode. And each episode is about 10
minutes or less to get you caught up quickly.
And please, if you want to support the show even more, go
to patreon.com/stagezero and please take care of yourselves
and each other and I'll see you tomorrow.