“I’m All for Government Efficiency, But…”

I’ve heard this a lot recently from friends, colleagues, education leaders, and elected officials on social media. The caveats that follow are often flimsy at best and irrational or anti-democratic at worst. I hope that these voices will instead choose to embrace the idea of a government that is more efficient and effective so that more money can go towards their own stated priorities and less can be spent on bureaucratic layers, waste, fraud, and interest on the exploding national debt.

Much of the mainstream discourse on the subject is unclear or contradictory. Some frame the cuts as so small and insignificant that they will never balance the budget. Meanwhile, others howl that a mere glance at the budget of NOAA will surely spell the end of regular weather forecasts. When its critics cannot decide whether cuts represent pointless penny-pinching or are fatal to core government functions, any case against DOGE becomes significantly more difficult to defend. Skeptics say that Elon Musk was not elected. True, but he was appointed by the president to do a job, just like any other political appointee. If government power in the hands of unelected officials is concerning, one should take greater issue with civilian federal employees, who often overtly obstruct the directives of those who were elected, than with political appointees authorized to perform a specific job.

Many also purport to be upset that the president’s appointees have access to their data. Frankly, some seemed more alarmed that DOGE staff have access to these systems than they are when it is revealed that foreign governments do. Many of these concerns are valid: It’s no secret that the federal government has at times disregarded its responsibility to not encroach on the privacy of citizens. If it is true that these critics really do not want the government to have so much data on them, then they should be some of the first to advocate for smaller government. However, if their real concern is that critical government payment and data systems are no longer exclusively managed, without oversight, by a cadre of mostly left-leaning career staff, regardless of who voters elect, then they may want to reconsider their political priorities.

Then there is the matter of layoffs. Layoffs alone will not balance the budget, and it is a disgrace when anyone gloats at the prospect of breadwinners suddenly wondering how they will support their families. Just like any other employees, however, civil servants are not entitled to their jobs for life. Hardly a week goes by without a major corporate layoff announcement, and few of those workers ever get a segment on cable news. Is it reasonable to believe that the federal government, which has essentially never seriously trimmed fat and has no profit motive, is somehow more efficient than these companies?

The true promise of DOGE is not about mere cuts but rather the promise to fundamentally rethink how government works. There is a reason DOGE is not a new agency but has merely subsumed the US Digital Service, the software shop created by President Obama. Personnel-intensive functions like discretionary grant competitions, investigations, permit approvals, or applications for funding like the FAFSA could be transformed for the better by technology. Endless rounds of report writing and document review could be replaced by AI and data uploads.

If you believe that the government should spend more money on food stamps, schools, and scientific research, administrative efficiency should be among your top priorities. I recently asked a group of community college leaders whether they would accept more money in exchange for less bureaucracy in Washington. Only about 20 percent raised their hands. It’s possible that more would say yes if they understood the full terms of such a deal. Regardless, anyone who does turn it down should be forced to answer tough questions.

Some may justifiably question whether a loss in bureaucracy would result in less accountability, more waste, or fraud. But that is not how these processes generally work in practice. Much of supposed government “accountability” is industry-supported rent-seeking or paper-pushing that satisfies vague statutory requirements only when individual government employees are satisfied. Casual observers need to understand that the most pragmatic reason for people to oppose DOGE’s work is if they are supporters of (or receive campaign contributions from) public employee unions, which have a direct financial stake in growing the government workforce and perpetuating engrained inefficiencies.

While some criticisms of its methods deserve hearings, it’s very possible that DOGE will wildly exceed expectations. The federal government’s operations and results could stop being a laughingstock and might even become enviable in some ways. What remains unacceptable is the outright dismissal and obstruction from pundits, elected officials, and advocacy groups in the service of broken government systems that serve no one except narrow special interests.