A Surprising Historical Figure Offers a Lesson for Elon Musk and the Dept. of Government Efficiency

One of Donald Trump’s splashiest personnel choices was the selection of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead what he has termed the “Department of Government Efficiency” — which seems likely to be some sort of outside commission to reduce federal bureaucracy and regulations. 

Trump’s emphasis on government efficiency is ripped from the playbook of an early 20th century president — but probably not the one Trump would hope to emulate. Odds are, if Trump were to think about early 20th century presidents, he’d see himself as following in footsteps of the macho, revered Theodore Roosevelt, whose visage adorns Mount Rushmore. Yet, in selecting Musk and Ramaswamy to undertake a review of the federal bureaucracy, Trump is actually taking after the far less remembered William Howard Taft. In fact, the key to the success of Musk and Ramaswamy’s effort might be how well they learn from Taft’s push to make government more efficient. Taft crucially recognized that efficiency did not necessarily mean cuts and that it also often demanded hiring the best experts possible. 

The early 20th century was known as the “Progressive Era.” At the time, reformers, mostly from the middle class, hoped to protect American lives with new government regulations, as well as by curbing the power of big business. Yet, they also placed a special emphasis on reforms, especially “economy” and “efficiency,” in government. They were not expanding government just for the sake of accruing power. Rather, they wanted the federal government to effectively serve Americans and address the pressing needs that had developed in a modernized country, at the lowest price tag possible.

Taft is commonly remembered as a conservative, because he had a falling out with Roosevelt, who eventually challenged him in the 1912 Republican primary and then ran as the Progressive Party candidate in the general election. Yet, Taft very much came out of the progressive reformer tradition and when he entered office, one key goal was to ensure that the federal government was maximally efficient. He recognized that the government — and the challenges facing the U.S. — had grown far beyond the point at which a President could micromanage affairs.

Taft was especially interested in foreign policy and therefore focused on the departments of State, Navy, and War. He ordered Secretaries Philander Knox, George von Lengerke Meyer, and Henry L. Stimson, respectively, to reorganize their departments along similar hierarchical lines. Taft saw this as a move toward cutting waste, better enabling departments to work together cohesively, and expanding executive power.

Read More: How a Second Trump Administration Will Change the Domestic and World Order

Importantly, all three secretaries were trusted loyalists who shared Taft’s policy beliefs and understood the significance of reorganization and its potential to provide the President with more power and freedom from Congress. A greater, more efficient bureaucracy promised to create a better operation to carry out the President’s policy prescriptions. Taft even selected Assistant Secretary of State Francis Mairs Huntington Wilson to be the department’s second in command because of his passionate vision for reorganization.

Taft’s lieutenants undertook their task with zeal, especially in the State Department. Knox and his deputies pushed so hard for standardization that Wilson proudly remarked “Before we had finished we had even standardized the scratchpads and the soap!”

Taft’s cabinet pushed to eliminate overlapping duties, and cut unnecessary bureaucracy. Stimson’s War Department, for example, sought to group the repetitive roles of distribution, publication, administration, and orders under the heading of “Administration,” with the aim of cutting costs of government publications that often overlapped and resulted in duplication and wasted spending.

Yet, while Taft’s cabinet streamlined their departments and strived for maximal efficiency, that didn’t necessarily mean reducing the size of bureaucracy. 

They grasped that efficiency demanded sufficient manpower. Nowhere was this more evident than in foreign policy formation, especially as the U.S. undertook an expanded role in the world, after the Spanish-American War. Secretary of State Knox divided his department into clear divisions for the first time, including separate roles for those specifically analyzing different geographic regions of the world. This necessitated hiring new people in many cases, and elevating experts. Between 1900 and 1910,  the Foreign and Civil Service grew from a mere 91 people to 234. The goal was to ensure that specialists in each area provided analysis and made recommendations for dealing with the respective countries in their regions. 

Taft grasped that his decisions would only be as good as the information and recommendations that he received. He wanted to hear from the best experts on a given issue and encouraged choosing diplomats based on merit. That included looking for experienced diplomatic hands, and often those with the necessary language skills required to understand a particular region of the world. Thomas C. Dawson, the first Chief of the Division of Latin-American Affairs, was one such experienced diplomat, who had worked as Roosevelt’s Ambassador to the Dominican Republic and Colombia.

Overall, Taft was less concerned about the number of employees in a particular department than in streamlining work, installing the best people, and ensuring that his secretaries had removed redundancies. He recognized that the federal bureaucracy needed to be large enough to support the growing role of the U.S. in the world, as well as the needs of Americans back home.

Read More: Here Are the New Members of Donald Trump’s Administration So Far

Trump and Taft are very different figures. Taft was detail-oriented and sometimes lost focus on the need to present the public with a clear narrative. Trump, by contrast, pays little attention to policy and governing details, but is adept at simple, memorable messaging.

Nonetheless, there is much that Musk and Ramaswamy can learn from Taft’s push for government efficiency. Trump and his MAGA movement deride experts as “elites” worthy of scorn and lacking in common sense. Over the summer, Trump described federal workers as “crooked” and “dishonest.” He vowed that “They’re going to be held accountable.” 

Yet, the lesson of Taft is that experts often can do more work than novices, who need to learn on the job. They also provide better information, based on accountability, which leads to improved decision making.

Additionally, Musk and Ramaswamy have made clear their intentions to slash what they, like Trump, label as  “corrupt” government. Yet, Taft’s quest for government efficiency reveals that smaller government isn’t always better government. Sometimes improving government functionality requires new employees or more employees. America was able to become a superpower and grow its presence on the world stage as a result of bureaucratic support.

Whether Musk and Ramaswamy embrace these lessons will likely determine how successful their push is. There is one reason for hope despite their caustic rhetoric: during the Progressive Era, the quest for government by experts came from the business world. Americans revered businesses that possessed a clear hierarchy and a scientific approach to management and saw them as something to emulate. The choice of two successful businessmen to lead Trump’s push may continue this tradition.

Laura Ellyn Smith is an assistant teaching professor at Arizona State University where she teaches U.S. History and serves on the Public History Committee in the School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies. She is a presidential historian whose second doctorate on the subject, undertaken at the University of Oxford, focused on William Howard Taft.

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.