Donald Trump’s second term is off to blistering start. He is certainly making some decisions that seem inconsistent with what one would typically consider MAGA policy goals. We’ll save tariffs, Ukraine, Greenland, and whether Trump really is a Manchurian Candidate for future articles. Today, I want to focus on DOGE. That’s Elon Musk and his crew of brainiacs working their way through the federal government looking for waste, fraud and abuse.
Right after the election I stated that I was excited for the potential of a Department of Government Efficiency. Every administration in my lifetime has promised to root out waste and abuse, but most just added to it. To his credit, Trump has taken a crack at it. And the response has been about what you’d expect. Elation from his ardent supporters and hysteria from his ardent opponents. What is a logical, More Spock, interpretation for DOGE activities thus far?
It is very mixed.
DOGE claims to have cut $105 billion in government spending as of the beginning of March. The judicial branch is rightfully being engaged via lawsuits. That $105 billion is going to shrink a bit as questions of executive branch authority to make DOGE-recommended cuts are meted out. But even if we accept DOGE’s claims, the left argues that $100 billion is a drop in the bucket – “chump change” I heard one commentator call it – when compared to the $6.8 trillion the federal government spent in 2024.
I disagree. As a taxpayer, I want my government to be a good steward of the money it takes from me. Every billion matters. Every family that attempts to tighten up its finances finds low hanging fruit (like cooking at home versus eating at restaurants) as ways to improve their cash flow. It’s obvious that entitlements are the real issue, but arguing that saving nickels is a waste of time when there are bigger dollars that we can’t really touch seems like a silly argument.
So, if we accept that finding ways to save nickels is a worthwhile endeavor, we next move to the what and how. And that’s where the discussion begins to change.
I’ve been in the room when organizations were making decisions about significant reductions-in-force. When a company faces economic headwinds (like the 2008 Great Recession), or some other shock that impacts top line revenue potential (like a new competitor), that company is forced to cut expenses in order to survive. The government has the option to simply print more money and run deficits forever. Companies and families don’t have that option. Trimming headcount is often an organization’s only means to stop financial bleeding.
When I was in those meetings, we all had heavy hearts as we knew it would be disruptive or even catastrophic for some of our employees to lose their jobs. We absolutely hated it and did everything we could to treat those employees with dignity and respect as we created plans for severance, outplacement support, and communicating the news.
Unfortunately, the DOGE cuts haven’t been handled that way. The president himself said at his first cabinet meeting that, “We’re bloated. We’re sloppy. We have a lot of people that are not doing their jobs.” We all have that stereotype of the government worker we’ve experienced at the DMV, airport or courthouse who is working in slow motion with minimum enthusiasm. The MAGA folks who are cheering-on the cuts speak about government employees as if all 2 million+ fit this stereotype. They are all parasites – good riddance!
It would have been much more effective from a public relations point of view to link the cuts to programs or grants that were not effective by saying something like, DOGE has recommended and we have agreed to cut 27 programs from our agency that are deemed to be ineffective at achieving their original mission or are inconsistent with the administration’s priorities. Unfortunately, this will mean that 1,000 employees will lose their jobs. We are working with them and the Office of Personnel Management to try to find other roles in our government for which their skills might be well suited.” Something like this would make it sound like the program, not the people, is the problem. Which is true.
Musk inserted himself at the employee level by sending out the “what did you do last week?” emails. It would have been better had DOGE stuck with programs, grants and process recommendations and let the agencies, themselves, use a metaphorical scalpel to make surgical headcount-cuts rather than allowing DOGE to use an axe and just mow people down. To clarify, I have no problem with asking workers, “what did you do last week?” But that question should have come from the actual agency heads, not Musk or DOGE.
I’ve listened to portions of Joe Rogan’s recent interview with Musk (Feb 28) and actually enjoyed hearing about some of the examples of waste and abuse they’ve uncovered. The most troubling is the huge numbers of NGOs (non-government organizations) that our tax money props up. According to Musk, many of these NGOs engage in activities that would be illegal for the government to do directly, but are basically 100% funded by the government. And like that subscription that you forget to cancel and you continue to pay for years, the government keeps sending these NGOs huge checks without any real oversight. He referred to it as a big grift. And I’m keen to see a large part of that grift game shut down – no matter which party it supports.
In summary, I enjoyed the Free Press’ opinion piece called Two Cheers for DOGE. I agree, DOGE doesn’t deserve the traditional Three Cheers! because of the sledgehammer approach they have taken to the project and the lack of empathy they’ve shown the federal employees – most of whom are good people and good workers who just ended up landing a job in a program that shouldn’t exist. But I want them to keep looking for those nickels – it’s about time someone did.