Ramaswamy breaks up with several NatCon attendees at protest-disrupted event

Vivek Ramaswamy spoke to the Cato Institute on Wednesday about the future of the American administrative state. Ramaswamy argued that some in the National Conservative movement, which emphasizes the capture of executive power and the use of federal agencies to promote conservative political goals, are fundamentally mistaken about both the nature of those agencies and the essence of national excellence.

The start of the event was interrupted by several climate change protesters who jumped on stage with a sign accusing Ramaswamy of being a parasite. The protesters chanted “climate conman” for several minutes before they were removed from the event.

Ramaswamy, however, used the break to add to the discussion. Referring to the debate over whether the Federal Trade Commission should block Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel, he pointed out that U.S. Steel’s major shareholder is Blackrock, a company that has repeatedly pressured companies to implement DEI initiatives, harmful climate policies, and other ESG-oriented measures. He argued that using the FTC to block the takeover would empower bureaucrats who oppose conservative goals, including economic freedom, to use their power to benefit Blackrock and climate protesters like those who were just thrown out of the room.

“It doesn’t make sense even in the context of promoting a conservative agenda,” he said. “Any time you try to expand the scope of a three-letter agency, you’re really digging a grave that you’re going to fall into tomorrow.”

At the event, Ramaswamy criticised some National Conservatives, both for their belief that the administrative state can and should be used to promote a conservative agenda and for their advocacy of protectionist economic policies.

Noting that the pre-Trump “blind neoliberal consensus” had failed, notably by making America more dependent on China, Ramaswamy said that decoupling from China required not protectionism but more trade with friendly countries like Japan and the Philippines. The future direction of American conservatism, he said, must be sovereignty, not blind maximization of economic profits or protection of the interests of a narrow class of workers.

Ramaswamy argued that American sovereignty in its fullest sense required a radical transformation of the relationship between the various branches of government and the administrative state—America could be sovereign if, and only if, its government was run by people we elected.

I think (the administrative state) is a holdover from pre-Revolutionary America under England and King George. The old idea was that we the people could not be trusted to govern ourselves… We had to be overseen by an enlightened elite… I think if there is one fundamental idea that unites all Americans, it is the belief that every person’s voice and vote counts as an equal as a citizen in a free marketplace of ideas… if we cannot govern ourselves in that way, I think we have lost the essence of why we fought the American Revolution in the first place.

Ramaswamy’s proposed solution is a drastic reduction in both regulations and staffing at federal agencies, which he believes could be implemented unilaterally by a strong executive branch. Citing several recent Supreme Court rulings, including Loper Bright Enterprises In.Raimondosuggested that the president could appoint constitutional lawyers to each agency to review regulations and rulings for compliance with the principal questions doctrine. Regulations that did not comply could be struck down by executive order, significantly reducing the government’s overall regulatory reach. At the same time, federal bureaucracies could be trimmed without having to deal with civil service protections through arbitrary mass layoffs—for example, firing all executive agency employees whose Social Security ID ends in an odd number.

Asked about the political feasibility of his motion, Ramaswamy said it would depend on the courage of the conservative leadership:

I think we’re living in one of those moments where we’re asking leaders to show people what they really need… We’re seeing a little bit of that in Argentina. What Javier Milei did — in a much smaller country, in much less complicated circumstances — but he showed what’s possible in cutting the unimaginable and actually, at least so far, showing results in a positive direction for people.