Chevron was never a partisan “Democratic” trick, it was a 1984 Supreme Court precedent that applied to every administration for forty years. It simply said that

Chevron was never a partisan “Democratic” trick, it was a 1984 Supreme Court precedent that applied to every administration for forty years. It simply said that when a statute is ambiguous, courts should accept a reasonable agency reading unless Congress says otherwise (Congress always had the power). That is ordinary separation‑of‑powers. When the Court overturned Chevron, it did not “return law‑making to Congress” as some claim, it didn't give Congress any more power than it already had. It instead shifted final interpretive power from expert agencies to federal judges. Congress still writes broad statutes and still relies on agencies to fill in technical details only now those rules are more vulnerable to litigation and inherently more fragile. Comparing that process to Elon Musk’s influence misses the mark. Agencies are public, transparent, and (at least theoretically) answerable to elected branches; Musk is a private supplier whose market dominance lets him set terms with little democratic oversight. One is statutory delegation, the other is private leverage with clear and obvious conflicts of interest. Treating them as equivalent flattens important distinctions and obscures the real accountability gaps in each scenario.