Others, like the FBI, CIA, DOD are needed to protect us. With reduced funding, like most civilian companies, they would learn to do more with less. It's called downsizing. Geeze, get a grip. What you want NO government? You want anarchy?
As far as a President (me or else) needs to go on a World tour and spend tax dollars, I would be gladly taxed more if I saw a Reagan or a Cruz do such and tell the world, "One more hit on American soil, we will hit you with NO rules of engagement, including tactical nukes. Also, we will always know where the nukes come from through technology." That is a known fact about nuclear signature. Google it.
Really? You're giving me crap for this? Think Obungler bowing before the Saudi King. I'm the bad guy?
The President of the United States has the 'Bully Pulpit" from which to communicate from, and when the President speaks from that "Bully Pulpit" the whole world hears that message. So why does the President need to go on a world tour and spend tax payer money? Instead taxes can be returned to those who have earned that money. With that money citizens can purchase goods & services thus creating jobs.
Of course I am not for eliminating the government. Instead I was saying rather than wither away agencies slowly why not eliminate the agencies you see as expendable. There are plenty that overlap other agencies, as well as, agencies that should not even be part of the Federal Government. Reduction in necessary agencies, where warranted, is fine.
As for "Rules of Engagement" that is better communicated with action not words. I guarantee that message would come through loud and clear very quickly. As the old saying goes: Talk softly, but carry a big stick.
If I thought you were really serious, I would offer some constructive criticism. While you have some good ideas, others need work, not in goal so much as content delivery. Otherwise, you are going to come off like Mike Pence. Heart in the right place, but unprepared for the really hard hitting you will face after being sworn in.