The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is a massive undertaking by the Trump administration to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse” (another dog whistle phrase) in the federal government. The department, supposedly (and likely) led by Elon Musk, has spearheaded significant workforce reductions across federal agencies, touting them as necessary steps toward streamlining operations, cutting waste, and saving taxpayer dollars.
The idea, on paper, makes sense: a leaner, more efficient government should, in theory, reduce bureaucracy and improve performance. But the reality is much more complicated and messy. Are these cuts truly making government more efficient, or are they gutting essential services and creating new problems in the name of savings?
The scope of DOGE’s effect on government, whether positive or negative, is massive. And like a lot of things in the Trump administration, the headlines regarding DOGE change everyday, making it difficult to cover everything in one post. Topics ranging from conflict of interest to the legality of freezing spending already approved by congress to the methodologies of DOGE all come to mind as interesting topics. For this post I will focus on their reductions and proposed reductions to the federal workforce in order to keep it a bit more focused.
The Scope of Workforce Reductions
DOGE has aggressively pursued staff reductions, targeting agencies across the federal government. Here are some of the most significant cuts:
- Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): Over 80,000 employees are being laid off, raising concerns about healthcare access for 15.8 million veterans. Critics argue this will overburden remaining staff and delay benefits, but supporters say it will eliminate redundant positions and improve efficiency. (Reuters)
- Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): DOGE-initiated layoffs have cut 5,200 jobs at HHS and 1,300 at the CDC, primarily targeting probationary employees. Proponents argue this removes underperforming or unnecessary roles, while opponents warn of weakened public health responses. (AP News)
- Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Layoffs have hit employees responsible for radar, landing, and navigational aid maintenance. After a fatal plane crash in Washington, D.C., critics blamed understaffing, while defenders claimed it was due to poor internal management rather than the cuts. (AP News)
- National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA): Staff reductions in nuclear security oversight have sparked concerns over national security. Interestingly, the agency has tried rehiring some employees shortly after firing them, raising questions about whether these cuts were ill-conceived or simply mismanaged. (AP News)
- Social Security Administration (SSA): 7,000 employees are being laid off, with significant concerns about how this will impact service delivery for seniors and disabled individuals. Some senior staff have resigned in protest. There is the additional comfort that DOGE now has access to SSA computer systems, that house personal data for millions of Americans. Nothing to be concerned about. (Reuters)
The Case for Workforce Reductions
1. Reducing Bureaucratic Bloat
Proponents argue that federal agencies have been overstaffed and inefficient for decades. Cutting jobs forces agencies to modernize, streamline operations, and focus on their core missions. However, without a deep understanding of roles and functions, the risk of firing essential employees remains high.
2. Saving Taxpayer Dollars
DOGE claims these workforce cuts will save billions over the next decade. Supporters argue that government spending is out of control and that reducing payroll is a necessary step toward fiscal responsibility.
3. Encouraging Innovation and Private-Sector Efficiency
A smaller federal workforce pushes agencies to adopt modern technology and outsource non-essential tasks. Advocates claim that the private sector operates more efficiently than government agencies.
4. Weeding Out Inefficiency and Poor Performance
By eliminating positions, agencies can get rid of underperforming employees, making room for merit-based staffing rather than tenure-based retention. However, it’s difficult to “algorithmically” determine inefficiencies without truly understanding job functions.
The Case Against Workforce Reductions
1. Cutting Staff = Cutting Services
Government agencies provide essential services. Slashing jobs means longer wait times, backlogged cases, and declining service quality.
- Veterans Affairs: 80,000 fewer employees could mean major delays in benefit processing.
- IRS Cuts: Reduced staff could result in tax return delays and enforcement gaps.
- CDC Layoffs: With ongoing public health challenges, now may not be the best time to cut jobs.
- SSA Reductions: Delays in benefits could have severe consequences for seniors and disabled individuals.
2. The Hidden Costs of Privatization
While outsourcing sounds efficient, it often costs more. Private contractors typically charge higher fees than government salaries and operate with profit motives rather than public service goals.
- Privatized prisons were supposed to cut costs but ended up costing more while reducing service quality.
- Does private industry have the infrastructure to provide equivalent services at a cheaper cost?
3. The Brain Drain Problem
Laying off workers means losing institutional knowledge.
- Once experienced employees leave, their expertise is difficult to replace.
- Younger employees, seeing the instability, may seek private-sector jobs, further shrinking the talent pool.
- The NNSA had to rehire laid-off employees, showing the lack of planning in these cuts.
4. The False “Savings” Narrative
DOGE claims these cuts will save billions, but does it really?
- Many of these cuts simply shift costs elsewhere—when people can’t get government services, they turn to more expensive private alternatives.
- Agencies forced to rehire mistakenly fired employees end up spending more in the long run.
- Long-term inefficiency costs (delays, errors, retraining, rehiring) aren’t factored into “savings” projections.
- Mass layoffs can lead to increased reliance on government assistance programs, creating a negative feedback loop.
So, What’s the Verdict?
Government efficiency is a great idea in theory. But in practice, DOGE seems more like a wrecking ball than a precision scalpel. There’s no strategic plan, no clear leadership, and no transparency—just mass firings and a vague promise that it’ll all work out.
Maybe if Trump had required department heads to strategically downsize, we’d actually see real efficiency improvements instead of chaotic slash-and-burn cuts. But that’s not the world we live in.
At this point, the only explanation that makes sense (at least to me) is that the real goal is privatization. If you gut essential services, make government look ineffective, and create frustration, people will be more open to handing everything over to private corporations.
Whether that’s the master plan or just a convenient side effect remains to be seen, but one thing’s clear: DOGE is either wildly incompetent or dangerously calculated—and neither is reassuring.
What Do You Think?
Should the government continue cutting its workforce in the name of efficiency? Should there be more transparency? Is this another case of short-term savings leading to long-term problems? Drop a comment below!