administration pushed out, apparently is getting rid of 60 career officials at an entity called USAID, which is not an aid organization. I don't want to get too deeply into that, but let me just say this. If it doesn't mean anything to you when I say that 60 officials were removed from USAID, then there's a gigantic part of America that you're missing. And I would refer you to Mike Benz to understand why neutering that organization might be really important. Because it's just one of these entities that you didn't know was doing a lot of stuff that you weren't aware of and you were paying for if you're an American taxpayer. So the Trump administration seems to be targeting all the things that really needed to be targeted, and they're doing it quickly. It's very impressive, I have to say. I'm totally impressed.

The Trump administration is also offering these buyouts for employees. So I guess you'll get eight months' pay if you decide to go by next week. So there's a website where you can volunteer to go, and you get eight months of pay if you go now. If you don't go now, you still might be laid off later but without the eight months of pay. So I'm guessing you get something but much less. So this is a really clever way to get things going.

Now what's going to happen, and you're seeing it already, is that people who are not good at doing anything are going to have all kinds of ideas about how it's being done wrong. Here's specifically what people who don't know how things work are going to say. They're going to say, hey, you cut too much too soon without looking at all the details. That's not a mistake. It will be true that if the administration does exactly what it should do, in other words if it acts in the smartest, most capable way, it will cut way too much way too fast without checking. That's the only way you can get there. Because the only way you're going to find out what's true is to cut stuff and find out who screams. The amount of pain that you cause is almost the only good indicator of what's working and what's true. Every government entity that Trump and company want to cut, everyone will be lying to them. They're all liars. There is no way you can study and take extra time to find out who you should fund and who you should get rid of. Can't be done because everybody's a liar.

So here's what you do instead. All right, I don't see any reason for this place. We should talk to them and see if they have a good argument. No, you just stop the funding and you just see what happens. Now if you don't have experience, you would say that is a little crazy, Scott. You don't just fire first and then make a plan after you've started. You make a plan first and then you execute the plan. Nope, not in this case. In this case you just have to run in and start punching stuff because you've got to just destroy the current assumptions, destroy the current comfort. You've just got to shake that box until everybody's dizzy. Then you might start seeing something useful. And you're going to have to take a bunch of guesses and it's going to be messy, messy, messy.

But here's what you can't do. The certain way to fail is low energy. The certain way to fail, and by the way failing to cut the budget is the end of humanity. I mean it would be the end of the United States and God knows what would follow, right? Because the world has a lot of dependence on the United States. People, we survive, but we might be living in tribes or something. So the level of risk involved in continuing to spend the way we are is really, it's 100% doom. So doing what we're doing in the normal way is 100% doom. There really is no escape. If you go wild with, let's say, putting full energy into cutting costs and you cut too deeply, what is the risk of that? Well there's definitely risk. There is risk to individual components of the country and that's real and we should be smart about those risks and we should try to adjust and we should try to make it easy on people when it makes sense. But you've got to do it. That's the important thing. If you don't put full energy into cutting and disrupting and shaking the box and getting rid of people before you've fully investigated, you can't get there. You just can't get there from here. Any kind of a low-energy traditional attack would be, well I've created a committee and the committee will be spending 18 months researching what should be cut. And the way they'll research it is they'll ask the opinions of the people they plan to cut. Hey, you're in charge of this department, how much should we cut? What you don't want to be cut, you have to increase 20% next year because otherwise the world will come to an end. Oh well, we'll put that together in a report and then we'll go back to the government in 18 months. Oh but we're a little late so we had to delay it. Really took two years. Oh wait a minute, we're halfway through Trump's entire term. No point in doing it now because they'll just fight it and they'll never get done before the end of the term. No, you cannot do a low-energy major cut. You have to go high energy, high mistake. High energy, high mistake. It's the only path. And the only people who are smart enough to know that are Elon Musk, Trump, and you know Vivek would know it, Sax would know it, Ammon would know it. I'm sure Andre knows it. I'll bet you you can't find anybody with a high IQ to disagree.

Let me lay down the gauntlet here. I say nobody who's got a high IQ, and the Trump administration has just freaking geniuses at this point, not one of them would disagree with going high energy, high potential mistake versus our ordinary study-it-to-death-and-do-nothing approach. And it's going to be hard to educate the people who don't have experience that it's the only way. We ran out of options. We only have one way to survive. This is it. This is it. And by the way this is not an exaggeration. This is for survival. And I don't think I've ever said that before. Usually everything else is, well we're trying to optimize, we're trying to avoid some trouble. No, the debt, this is survival and we have to put 100% into it.

All right, this is interesting. Apparently Trump is suing the Pulitzer Prize committee for having given Pulitzer Prizes to the New York Times and Washington Post over their Russia collusion fake news. Now I don't think this can succeed. I've never seen anything like it. So it's one thing to sue the people with the fake news and I don't know that that's happening. I don't think he's suing the New York Times and the Washington Post over Russia collusion stories. But if he's suing the Pulitzer committee because they gave awards and didn't take them back, I think they'd be happy if they were just rescinded. So someth