The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has instituted broad changes and cuts to federal departments and agencies in order to promote “efficiency.” Despite the department’s emphasis on transparency and organization, their own website has consistently displayed budget errors, including one $8 billion typo and misstated estimated savings. The website is the only source for DOGE’s budget, meaning that their financial information is less transparently available than other government departments that they are tasked with making more transparent.
Another example of the lack of transparency is the fact that DOGE can access sensitive data without justifying the data’s use. Cutbacks to the Social Security Administration somehow necessitate viewing millions of Americans’ private financial information, but DOGE has not explained why. If any other government department or agency did the same thing, there would be massive news backlash, but every action that DOGE takes is so disruptive that shadily taking information has become a somewhat accepted part of the status quo.
Beyond lack of transparency, the main way that DOGE tries to improve “government efficiency” is troubling. The DOGE firings could impact the next generation of federal workers in addition to reducing materials and funds for current initiatives. The Social Security Administration has already seen large-scale shutdowns of regional offices, website crashes and lack of response on phone lines. This dismantlement will harm the most vulnerable citizens, including those who rely on Social Security for retirement and disability benefits.
In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) works with local health departments and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to trace back and locate food-borne illnesses. This process helps to identify where in the supply chain an illness originates so that further spread can be prevented; however,
In addition, DOGE’s cuts to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will make it more difficult to link foodborne illnesses to their original location. Efficiency should not come at the cost of safety, but food safety is jeopardized by every staffing cut that DOGE makes and every program that it removes.
Finally, DOGE’s cuts to scientific research have the potential to delay future progress on medical innovations that could save lives. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has suffered repeated bans on communication, publication and grants since DOGE’s inception. Contrary to DOGE’s stated mission, it has fostered inefficiency and confusion, which could reduce the market for scientific research and force federal employees to find other jobs. These new jobs will not be as central or coordinated as the NIH once was, so any innovation will be slowed by the interaction of disparate organizations with each other and with a weakened government agency.
Supporters of DOGE argue that some federal spending is unnecessary and that DOGE can help speed up the government’s work to enact more effective change. These arguments make sense in theory, but they conflict with the fundamental facts of DOGE’s actions—gutting entire agencies, ignoring safety concerns and overburdening the select federal employees that remain.
As DOGE strives for efficiency, the government loses essential services and workers. DOGE does not just affect the government, though; the entire country is harmed by DOGE’s sweeping, seemingly arbitrary decisions. The impact is clear: we lose transparency, efficiency and effective government action.