The U.S. government needs to “delete entire agencies” in a cost and efficiency drive, tech billionaire and Tesla co-founder Elon Musk said Thursday when asked about whether the changes he is implementing as part of the Donald Trump administration will last beyond the current president’s term.

The Supreme Court on June 27 was right to place on hiatus something that was both figuratively and literally another attempted power grab by President Joe Biden’s hyperaggressive regulators.

While the legal result was appropriate, the practical results of the decision could be even better. The decision could save both money and lives.

The Supreme Court appears poised to scrap or revise a long-standing ruling that relates to how agencies interpret ambiguous statutes, with major implications for regulations that touch many aspects of commerce.

A decision to undo the 40-year-old precedent known as the Chevron deference, or the Chevron doctrine, will have repercussions in the business world, affecting rulemaking in areas as varied as finance, healthcare, and technology.

A City Hall aide who was suspended for inappropriate conduct amid an FBI probe into Mayor Eric Adams’ campaign fundraising is cooperating with the feds, sources confirmed to The Post.

The Adams staffer who turned on her boss has been identified by sources as Rana Abbasova, whose home was raided by the FBI as part of the federal corruption investigation into the mayor’s 2021 campaign.

After Abbasova’s New Jersey house was raided in November 2023, sources have said she urged fellow City Hall staffers to delete texts, leading to her suspension.

The National Institutes of Health appears to be struggling to hide its dirty laundry on COVID-19 origins against a rash of leaks, congressional probes, and Freedom of Information Act requests, even when officials are determined to thwart sunlight.

The ongoing exposure of their communications and actions isn't the only thing likely worrying federal scientists. 

It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the rule outlined in that case, known as the Chevron doctrine, will survive in its current form. A majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a pair of oral arguments on an issue that could dramatically shrink the power of executive agencies to interpret and enforce federal laws.

It is billed as a fight between what one side calls unchecked government overreach and others see as necessary protection of a broad swath of areas like environmental, health, workplace safety and consumer laws.

Oral arguments begin at 10 a.m. and could go past 1 p.m. Rulings are expected by late June.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear the first of two landmark cases this term challenging the runaway administrative state. At stake in SEC v. Jarkesy is a bedrock constitutional principle that colonists fought to defend in the American revolution: the right to a trial by jury.

This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case that poses the most direct challenge yet to the legitimacy of the modern federal government. The right-wing legal movement’s target is the “administrative state”—the agencies and institutions that set standards for safety in the workplace, limit environmental hazards and damage, and impose rules on financial markets to ensure their stability and basic fairness, among many other important things. The case, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, threatens all of that. Terrifyingly, this gambit might succeed.