There's this kind of thing that happens in biology called evolution, and a lot of people think evolution is this continuous process, but it's not. Evolution is this process by which there is some significant growth for a period of time, and then there is an extinction

event or an external force that causes what ultimately becomes what's called punctuated equilibrium. So the whole kind of system resets, and then the healthier, stronger species survive and they grow and they persist. And if you look at the first chart, Nick, that I pulled up, this will just show you

guys, past extinction events, large amounts of biomass over the past half billion years get wiped out when these extinction events occur, and then evolution occurs because the species that can survive the extinction event persist in the environment and they grow, and that's how evolution kind of

actually takes place. There's an external force that changes what survives and what doesn't. It's kind of a testing force. If you look at federal spending, and this is a crazy link, but here's federal spending over the last couple of decades,

and I would argue that many of the agencies, much of the bureaucracy, many of the jobs created, many of the spending programs, many of the operating models, many of the behaviors can kind of be viewed as a specie or species within this ecosystem that have kind of grown a

lot over the last few decades. And I think what Trump's mandate was by the people, and people don't want to hear this and they don't like it, but his mandate was to be kind of the extinction event. And whatever agencies, whatever operating processes, whatever individuals

whatever bureaucratic systems exist within the federal government that can withstand the scrutiny of the individuals that Trump is going to put in charge of each of these agencies that they can survive and they can come out the other end there is certainly some degree of strength and resilience and

hardiness this is not about right or wrong they deserve to exist if they can this is going to bring in this is going to bring in the most disruptive force that federal agencies have ever seen and the intention with Trump isn't to find some

person to keep running things the way they have been run in the past his mandate from the people who elected him based on the message he put out there is to do the opposite which is to go in and be as disruptive and damaging and destructive as possible and whatever

comes out the other side will be stronger will be harder and theoretically will'll be you know more resilient and I think that that's the event that's underway now the people who are getting exactly what they want in Trump's candidacy are the Democrats

they were saying Trump is going to put a bunch of crazy lunatics in office and he's going to make them the cabinet and they're G and that and now they're able to kind of clap their hands and say we told you so we told you so and I'm not

sure that if they're really getting the message which is that the intention here isn't to keep things running the way they have been running but to really fundamentally test the systems and test the systems with the most challenging oppositional forces the systems have

ever been tested by which is the candidates or the individuals that he's putting in charge of each of these agencies so I I'm not saying it's right or wrong one way or the other but I'm making an observation that this is going

to be kind of an extinction level event that Trump's decisions on who he's putting in place I think are going to drive an outcome on the other end that's going to make the government look very different and I you know I'm not going

to sit around and say this person's good this person's bad because I don't think the point is to find someone that's quote unquote qualified to do the job the intention is actually quite different and the outcome may actually be positive for America if you fast forward a couple

of years in some cases and there's some cases where things could get really messed up and people could suffer and jobs will be lost and all sorts of bad things will happen but we cannot continue the way we have been with respect to federal spending with respect

to federal spending bureaucracy and inefficiency in the federal government and so something has to happen and if this is the path by which this gets resolved in the limited window that's in of this this particular Administration which is probably two years maybe four maybe this is what has to happen Shabbat

where do you stand on free BG's interesting metaphor here that we're sending meteors into each of these departments to blow them up and see if they survive an extinction level event I saw you nodding do you think this is uh an interesting framing great take I have

nothing to add to Fred Brooks State got it who's your favorite yeah you asked me the question I answered who's your favorite well I think let's take Elon and VI off the table because that's an obvious one that we've all been behind

since the beginning yeah and no and we all support the idea who's not against more efficiency I mean you'd have to be an idiot to be against efficiency it's just the easiest one to say you love I think the highest beta pick so far has

been Bobby Kennedy I think the second highest beta pick is Matt Gates explain highest beta pick in this context please I think the third is Tulsi Gabbard that there is the potential for an enormous positive two or three sigma outcome but there's also the chance that

it can really not work that was exactly why I picked Bobby Kennedy because he's going to shake it up right Peter Thiel just did this podcast with Bari Weiss and it was fantastic by the way highly recommend highly recommend he's awesome

the one of the great things he said is that he was talking about science but I think the example works here as well which is that we didn't have enough skepticism and we had too much dogma he was talking about sort of like the the

death of science and I think that that idea applies here as well which is that the federal bureaucracy has not really been challenged and VI put out a very compelling post on X where he basically said like look when you on the one hand there's going to be radical

transparency, but on the other hand, there's a lot of case law that we can use to kind of try to really dismantle the government apparatus. And they're putting themselves on a shot clock to do it by 2026 for the 250th anniversary, so

I think I'm really predisposed to this idea that it'll force the government to be very resilient at the end of this process, and I think that's a good thing. And it'll probably be very different than what it is on the way in, and I

Trump's Mandate: An Extinction-Level Event for Federal Bureaucracy

Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.

Follow the besties: 
https://twitter.com/chamath
https://twitter.com/Jason
https://twitter.com/DavidSacks
https://twitter.com/friedberg

Follow the pod: 
https://twitter.com/theallinpod
https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod
https://www.tiktok.com/@all_in_tok
https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod

Subscribe to our clips channel for the best of the besties:
https://www.youtube.com/@allinpod?sub_confirmation=1


All-In Podcast

Evolution is not continuous; it involves periods of growth followed by extinction events.

Extinction events cause a reset, with stronger species surviving and growing.

Past extinction events wiped out large amounts of biomass, leading to evolutionary changes.

This concept is applied to analyze federal spending and bureaucracy.

Trump's Presidency as an Extinction Event for Federal Agencies

Federal agencies, programs, and operating models are viewed as species.

Trump's mandate was to act as an extinction event, testing the resilience of federal systems.

The goal is disruption and destruction to identify strong, resilient systems.

Democrats' reactions are noted as an example of the intended disruption.

The focus is on fundamentally testing the systems, not simply finding qualified personnel.

Potential Outcomes and Necessity of Change

Potential positive long-term outcomes are mentioned, alongside potential negative short-term consequences.

The current system of federal spending, bureaucracy, and inefficiency is unsustainable.

The current administration's actions may be the necessary path to resolve these issues.

Discussion of High-Beta Political Figures

The metaphor of sending 'meteors' into departments to test their survival is discussed.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are mentioned as obvious choices for efficiency.

Bobby Kennedy, Matt Gaetz, and Tulsi Gabbard are identified as high-beta picks due to their potential for significant positive or negative outcomes.

Need for Skepticism and Dismantling Government Apparatus

Peter Thiel's podcast discussion on the need for skepticism and overcoming dogma is referenced.

The federal bureaucracy needs to be challenged.

Vivek Ramaswamy's approach of radical transparency and using case law to dismantle the government is mentioned.

The goal is to create a more resilient government by 2026.

The speaker believes this process can lead to a positive outcome, resulting in a very different, more resilient government.