>A certain amount of creative destruction is necessary...

This sounds truthy and even casts instability as somehow heroic, but it's an oversimplification and hides similar fallacies. It also implies that instability for the sake of instability is default-positive.

The best way to avoid capture is via law / regulation. There should be term limits, campaign finance reform, more regulation against lobbyists and the revolving door, etc. We can't have Citizens United then wonder how capture happened. And, no amount of instability will address that.

In fact, instability in this environment can serve as cover for increased capture, as there is no bulwark against reassignment of winners. This is likely what we're seeing with Musk right now.

Stability here doesn't mean nothing changes. It means things change in an orderly, reasoned manner to include thoughtfully preventing capture.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with you, that's irrelevant. The law is the law. If it specifies that a particular agency must exist, and how it should function, then that's what the executive is required to implement.

In theory, at least. If Trump and his minions decide to do something else, there isn't really anyone with the power to stop him, absent impeachment.