What is Wrong with D.O.G.E?

Efficiency is a worthy objective, but the Department of Government Efficiency is getting a few things wrong

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, has dominated social media discussions since its inception. Musk, never one to shy away from a spectacle, has eagerly taken to Twitter to announce which programs are next on the chopping block, framing every cut as a battle against government waste and abuse.

The overarching goal of DOGE is clear: reduce government spending. This has led to the dismantling of USAID, cuts to the Department of Education, and an aggressive push toward downsizing. But despite its name, it remains unclear whether “efficiency” is truly a guiding principle of DOGE or just a convenient pretext for indiscriminate slashing of government programs.

Is Government Inefficiency Always a Problem?

While efficiency is a core principle for corporations, in government, efficiency is not always the primary objective and in many cases, inefficiency serves a deliberate and necessary purpose.

Governments exist to serve all citizens, not just the most profitable segments of the population. Unlike businesses that can abandon unprofitable ventures, governments must provide essential services even when it is inefficient to do so. This includes funding schools in remote areas, maintaining infrastructure that may not generate revenue, and running social programs that do not yield immediate economic returns.

Some inefficiencies are intentional safeguards. Regulatory oversight may slow decision-making, but it prevents corruption, reckless cost-cutting, and corporate abuse. Bureaucratic processes protect public funds, ensure accountability, and uphold democracy. A government that prioritizes efficiency above all risks stripping away these protections, making it a tool for the wealthy and powerful, rather than a guardian of public interest.

The Flawed Corporate Lens on Government

A real danger arises when those tasked with improving efficiency fail to distinguish between the role of governments and corporations. Take Chamath Palihapitiya, billionaire venture capitalist and staunch supporter of DOGE, and his recent assertion that the U.S. government is “deeply unprofitable.” This assertion was promptly co-signed by a quoted retweet from Musk. A critique as nonsensical as calling a business “deeply unbenevolent.”

A government’s success is not measured by profit margins but by economic stability, public welfare, and national security. While eliminating genuine waste is important, applying corporate-style cost-cutting to essential public services can create more harm than good. A company that lays off workers to improve efficiency might see a boost in its stock price—but a government that indiscriminately slashes programs could leave millions without access to quality education, healthcare, or life saving support payments.

The Hypocrisy of Billionaire Beneficiaries

Often, the government acts as an investor, assuming risks that private entities avoid. While taxpayers fund these risks, the financial rewards overwhelmingly flow to private companies. NASA’s advancements in space exploration, the Department of Defense’s development of GPS, and the pioneering of the internet are all government-funded investments that have laid the foundation for the success of corporations like SpaceX, Google, and Apple. SpaceX, for example, would not exist in its current form without billions in NASA contracts and government-funded research.

Government subsidies have also played a crucial role in corporate success. Musk’s SpaceX and Tesla have received billions in taxpayer-funded support. Tesla alone has been the recipient of an estimated $2.8 billion in subsidies. Unlike venture capitalists, the government does not get to participate in the profits of the companies it invests in. This stands in stark contrast to Chamath’s stated concerns about government profitability in a tweet co-signed by Musk—an irony lost on DOGE’s leadership.

A Stacked Deck: Who Benefits From “Efficiency” Cuts?

DOGE’s cuts, which fulfil a lot of Trump’s campaign promises, reveal a troubling pattern. The cancellation of $1bn in the Department of Education contracts effectively terminating its research branch is a missed opportunity to leverage the agency to improve the delivery of education and address the troubling issue of U.S. students falling behind their peers- a worthy investment for the future of U.S. economic prosperity and competitiveness. Is it more efficient for states to individually take this on?

The gutting of USAID, an agency that fights infectious diseases, counteracts foreign influence, and strengthens U.S. alliances has been supported by claims of waste and fraud. Although cutting the entire agency barely dents the federal budget-USAID made up just 0.4% of government spending in 2024-its elimination carries some risks, from declining global health outcomes to refugee crises. The resulting weakening of global stability will likely result in greater costs to the U.S. in the future.

Worse still, DOGE’s approach appears reckless, driven by a mix of ideological zeal, a lack of expertise, and a haphazard execution that undermines its stated goals. After slashing USAID funding, Musk admitted that some critical programs-including Ebola prevention-were mistakenly cut. The demonstrated lack of precision in the execution of DOGE operations suggests that those leading the effort may be in over their heads. A truly efficient approach would have involved a targeted review of waste rather than a blunt-force reduction. Government functions, far more complex than cost-cutting at Tesla or Twitter, require expertise and nuance. Lives are at stake.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), another DOGE target, was created after the 2008 financial crisis to prevent banks and lenders from exploiting consumers. The CFPB, with 1,750 employees and a $758 million budget, has saved Americans $21 billion in canceled debts, fraud restitution, and lawsuits against corporate misconduct.

Musk’s own venture into financial services through X money would have fallen under the CFPB’s regulatory oversight. Now with blunted teeth, a reduced work force and limited scope, the powers of the agency have been stripped in an amazing win for Wall street against ordinary Americans.

The Cost of a Billionaire-Led Government

In the midst of this push for efficiency, the Trump administration is planning to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This plan delivers minimal savings—$273 for those earning under $50,000, less than $1,000 for middle-income households, but over $78,000 for millionaires. The tax cuts will be financed by proposed cuts to Medicaid, taxes on tuition scholarships, and reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Given that the U.S. government deficit is already at $1.1 trillion halfway through the 2025 fiscal year, approaching the $1.8 trillion deficit of the previous year, it makes sense to curb excess spending. However, determining what needs to be cut should involve people who understand the role of government in fostering economic prosperity and protecting the welfare of citizens. Cuts should be executed with precision and an understanding of their broader impact—rather than as an ideological campaign against government itself.

If DOGE’s unchecked crusade continues, the wealthy will see their fortunes protected while essential services for ordinary Americans vanish—all in the name of so-called efficiency.