Efficiency Drive or Capability Destruction: Can DOGE even succeed?
31 mar 2025
The United States federal government, a massive entity employing roughly 2.4 million people across over 400 agencies (excluding postal workers and active-duty military personnel), has become the center of a heated debate regarding its size and efficiency. The second Trump administration, spearheaded by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, has initiated a significant effort to downsize this workforce, with a stated goal of a 10% reduction, or 240,000 positions. This has led to tens of thousands of federal employees being laid off in recent weeks. For many affected employees, this came as a shock: "We were leaving work fully employed and coming back the next morning without a job". The initial wave of terminations impacted roughly 24,000 workers who received notices. However, this dramatic move has faced immediate legal challenges. Two federal courts on opposite coasts have ruled that the firings of so-called probationary workers were improper mass firings, ordering the administration to issue sweeping job reinstatements for tens of thousands of these workers. It remains unclear when these employees will return, with reports of some being placed on administrative leave.
Beyond layoffs, the Trump administration has also aimed to dismantle entire agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Department of Education. These efforts, too, are facing legal challenges in courts across the country. This period has been described as an "extraordinary first part of the second Trump term," with concerns raised about the fundamental destruction of government capability.
At the heart of these actions is the narrative that "the federal government is too large. We're cutting down the government. We're cutting down the size of government. We have to. We're bloated. We're sloppy. We have a lot of people that aren't doing their job". President Trump has stated his intention to order "a reduction of the federal bureaucracy by at least 100,000 positions over the next four years," projecting savings of $9 billion for American taxpayers. Many Americans agree with this sentiment, feeling that the government is "too big. It's too bloated. They want to see cuts".
However, critics argue that such sweeping cuts without strategic planning could be detrimental. As one perspective notes, "There's no doubt that there's bloat in some places, in some functions, but you've got to identify it first. You don't just cut the whole thing". The concern is that essential functions might be eliminated, requiring the government to "go back and build again" the very services they cut.
It's important to understand who these federal workers are. Contrary to the image of only "white collar bureaucrats," the federal workforce includes nurses, park rangers, and countless other professionals. In fact, the single largest occupation of federal workers is related to health care, with nursing being the most common. These civil servants, numbering around 2 million career professionals, perform vital tasks such as "inspect[ing] the meat that you buy in the supermarkets, or those air traffic controllers who are responsible for making sure our air system is safe, or the intelligence analyst who is trying to stop incursions by China or Russia into our digital infrastructure".
The rationale behind the cuts includes federal budget savings and the belief that "smaller government is better," potentially moving resources to the private sector and state/local governments. However, the impact of these cuts on the nation's more than $1.8 trillion deficit is questionable. While the average federal worker earns "a little over $100,000 per year" and the government spent "$835 billion in personnel compensation and benefits" in fiscal year 2024, this figure makes up only 8.6% of the government's total spending. Notably, this is less than the $1.1 trillion spent on interest paid on the government's debt last year. Some experts argue that these mass firings could actually cost taxpayers more money due to legal challenges.
Interestingly, data reveals that the federal workforce has remained about the same size for the past 50 years, even as federal spending has quintupled. This discrepancy is largely attributed to a significant increase in the number of federal contractors, who currently outnumber federal employees by more than 2 to 1. Experts suggest that if cost control is the primary goal, focusing on government contracts would be far more impactful than solely targeting federal employees.
Elaine Kamarck, who managed the National Performance Review under the Clinton administration, successfully reduced the federal workforce by 426,000 employees and created the smallest federal government since Eisenhower. However, Kamarck emphasizes that their approach was strategic, aiming for a government that "works better, costs less," with both aspects being equally important. Their reforms involved working with Congress to make strategic cutbacks and eliminate regulations, ultimately saving the government around $136 billion. Kamarck believes in reviewing government functioning but cautions against "taking down entire organizations which have statutory authority" with an "ax, not a scalpel".
The potential consequences of these mass firings are significant. Concerns have been raised about the impact on public services, such as environmental protection (EPA), wildfire prevention (U.S. Forest Service), and services for veterans (Department of Veterans Affairs). Layoffs at the Department of Education could also affect school and university access to federal funds. Furthermore, the displacement of thousands of "highly skilled workers" could have negative implications for the economy, potentially increasing unemployment and leading to a "hit on growth".
The legal battles surrounding these actions suggest a "constitutional crisis," as the administration's attempts to dismantle agencies are challenging laws passed by Congress. This sets the stage for a likely showdown in the Supreme Court. The rise of AI-powered tools like Quantera and automated data processing has allowed us to analyze complex large data sets and market movements.
In conclusion, the ongoing efforts to downsize the federal government are complex and multifaceted. While there is a valid debate about government efficiency and the appropriate size of the federal workforce, the current approach of mass firings and agency dismantling faces legal challenges and raises serious concerns about the potential disruption of essential public services and the broader economy. A more strategic and less disruptive approach, as demonstrated by past reforms, might be a more effective path towards achieving a government that truly "works better, costs less".
Beyond layoffs, the Trump administration has also aimed to dismantle entire agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Department of Education. These efforts, too, are facing legal challenges in courts across the country. This period has been described as an "extraordinary first part of the second Trump term," with concerns raised about the fundamental destruction of government capability.
At the heart of these actions is the narrative that "the federal government is too large. We're cutting down the government. We're cutting down the size of government. We have to. We're bloated. We're sloppy. We have a lot of people that aren't doing their job". President Trump has stated his intention to order "a reduction of the federal bureaucracy by at least 100,000 positions over the next four years," projecting savings of $9 billion for American taxpayers. Many Americans agree with this sentiment, feeling that the government is "too big. It's too bloated. They want to see cuts".
However, critics argue that such sweeping cuts without strategic planning could be detrimental. As one perspective notes, "There's no doubt that there's bloat in some places, in some functions, but you've got to identify it first. You don't just cut the whole thing". The concern is that essential functions might be eliminated, requiring the government to "go back and build again" the very services they cut.
It's important to understand who these federal workers are. Contrary to the image of only "white collar bureaucrats," the federal workforce includes nurses, park rangers, and countless other professionals. In fact, the single largest occupation of federal workers is related to health care, with nursing being the most common. These civil servants, numbering around 2 million career professionals, perform vital tasks such as "inspect[ing] the meat that you buy in the supermarkets, or those air traffic controllers who are responsible for making sure our air system is safe, or the intelligence analyst who is trying to stop incursions by China or Russia into our digital infrastructure".
The rationale behind the cuts includes federal budget savings and the belief that "smaller government is better," potentially moving resources to the private sector and state/local governments. However, the impact of these cuts on the nation's more than $1.8 trillion deficit is questionable. While the average federal worker earns "a little over $100,000 per year" and the government spent "$835 billion in personnel compensation and benefits" in fiscal year 2024, this figure makes up only 8.6% of the government's total spending. Notably, this is less than the $1.1 trillion spent on interest paid on the government's debt last year. Some experts argue that these mass firings could actually cost taxpayers more money due to legal challenges.
Interestingly, data reveals that the federal workforce has remained about the same size for the past 50 years, even as federal spending has quintupled. This discrepancy is largely attributed to a significant increase in the number of federal contractors, who currently outnumber federal employees by more than 2 to 1. Experts suggest that if cost control is the primary goal, focusing on government contracts would be far more impactful than solely targeting federal employees.
Elaine Kamarck, who managed the National Performance Review under the Clinton administration, successfully reduced the federal workforce by 426,000 employees and created the smallest federal government since Eisenhower. However, Kamarck emphasizes that their approach was strategic, aiming for a government that "works better, costs less," with both aspects being equally important. Their reforms involved working with Congress to make strategic cutbacks and eliminate regulations, ultimately saving the government around $136 billion. Kamarck believes in reviewing government functioning but cautions against "taking down entire organizations which have statutory authority" with an "ax, not a scalpel".
The potential consequences of these mass firings are significant. Concerns have been raised about the impact on public services, such as environmental protection (EPA), wildfire prevention (U.S. Forest Service), and services for veterans (Department of Veterans Affairs). Layoffs at the Department of Education could also affect school and university access to federal funds. Furthermore, the displacement of thousands of "highly skilled workers" could have negative implications for the economy, potentially increasing unemployment and leading to a "hit on growth".
The legal battles surrounding these actions suggest a "constitutional crisis," as the administration's attempts to dismantle agencies are challenging laws passed by Congress. This sets the stage for a likely showdown in the Supreme Court. The rise of AI-powered tools like Quantera and automated data processing has allowed us to analyze complex large data sets and market movements.
In conclusion, the ongoing efforts to downsize the federal government are complex and multifaceted. While there is a valid debate about government efficiency and the appropriate size of the federal workforce, the current approach of mass firings and agency dismantling faces legal challenges and raises serious concerns about the potential disruption of essential public services and the broader economy. A more strategic and less disruptive approach, as demonstrated by past reforms, might be a more effective path towards achieving a government that truly "works better, costs less".
Beyond layoffs, the Trump administration has also aimed to dismantle entire agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Department of Education. These efforts, too, are facing legal challenges in courts across the country. This period has been described as an "extraordinary first part of the second Trump term," with concerns raised about the fundamental destruction of government capability.
At the heart of these actions is the narrative that "the federal government is too large. We're cutting down the government. We're cutting down the size of government. We have to. We're bloated. We're sloppy. We have a lot of people that aren't doing their job". President Trump has stated his intention to order "a reduction of the federal bureaucracy by at least 100,000 positions over the next four years," projecting savings of $9 billion for American taxpayers. Many Americans agree with this sentiment, feeling that the government is "too big. It's too bloated. They want to see cuts".
However, critics argue that such sweeping cuts without strategic planning could be detrimental. As one perspective notes, "There's no doubt that there's bloat in some places, in some functions, but you've got to identify it first. You don't just cut the whole thing". The concern is that essential functions might be eliminated, requiring the government to "go back and build again" the very services they cut.
It's important to understand who these federal workers are. Contrary to the image of only "white collar bureaucrats," the federal workforce includes nurses, park rangers, and countless other professionals. In fact, the single largest occupation of federal workers is related to health care, with nursing being the most common. These civil servants, numbering around 2 million career professionals, perform vital tasks such as "inspect[ing] the meat that you buy in the supermarkets, or those air traffic controllers who are responsible for making sure our air system is safe, or the intelligence analyst who is trying to stop incursions by China or Russia into our digital infrastructure".
The rationale behind the cuts includes federal budget savings and the belief that "smaller government is better," potentially moving resources to the private sector and state/local governments. However, the impact of these cuts on the nation's more than $1.8 trillion deficit is questionable. While the average federal worker earns "a little over $100,000 per year" and the government spent "$835 billion in personnel compensation and benefits" in fiscal year 2024, this figure makes up only 8.6% of the government's total spending. Notably, this is less than the $1.1 trillion spent on interest paid on the government's debt last year. Some experts argue that these mass firings could actually cost taxpayers more money due to legal challenges.
Interestingly, data reveals that the federal workforce has remained about the same size for the past 50 years, even as federal spending has quintupled. This discrepancy is largely attributed to a significant increase in the number of federal contractors, who currently outnumber federal employees by more than 2 to 1. Experts suggest that if cost control is the primary goal, focusing on government contracts would be far more impactful than solely targeting federal employees.
Elaine Kamarck, who managed the National Performance Review under the Clinton administration, successfully reduced the federal workforce by 426,000 employees and created the smallest federal government since Eisenhower. However, Kamarck emphasizes that their approach was strategic, aiming for a government that "works better, costs less," with both aspects being equally important. Their reforms involved working with Congress to make strategic cutbacks and eliminate regulations, ultimately saving the government around $136 billion. Kamarck believes in reviewing government functioning but cautions against "taking down entire organizations which have statutory authority" with an "ax, not a scalpel".
The potential consequences of these mass firings are significant. Concerns have been raised about the impact on public services, such as environmental protection (EPA), wildfire prevention (U.S. Forest Service), and services for veterans (Department of Veterans Affairs). Layoffs at the Department of Education could also affect school and university access to federal funds. Furthermore, the displacement of thousands of "highly skilled workers" could have negative implications for the economy, potentially increasing unemployment and leading to a "hit on growth".
The legal battles surrounding these actions suggest a "constitutional crisis," as the administration's attempts to dismantle agencies are challenging laws passed by Congress. This sets the stage for a likely showdown in the Supreme Court. The rise of AI-powered tools like Quantera and automated data processing has allowed us to analyze complex large data sets and market movements.
In conclusion, the ongoing efforts to downsize the federal government are complex and multifaceted. While there is a valid debate about government efficiency and the appropriate size of the federal workforce, the current approach of mass firings and agency dismantling faces legal challenges and raises serious concerns about the potential disruption of essential public services and the broader economy. A more strategic and less disruptive approach, as demonstrated by past reforms, might be a more effective path towards achieving a government that truly "works better, costs less".
Ready to see what we have built?
Join thousands of investors and professionals and see how we have driven their success.