The Core and Curse of DOGE

Every election Americans have been desensitized to claims of cutting spending and somehow getting everything they want at the same time. We expect that candidates will say we can have it all. We hypothetically know that cutting spending and government waste are good things, but they always take second priority to whatever urgent situation or desires we face. The Department of Government Efficiency takes a radically new approach to this problem of motivation and has created a new means for waste to be cut. It is important to not disregard the fact that there have been many government oversight organizations with the sole purpose of focusing on fraud and waste. DOGE has begun their own efforts of documenting waste and directly cutting excess spending, but they do not seek to undercut previous attempts. DOGE has an ability to act that has not been matched by other waste-cutting agencies.

While the goal of cutting spending is undoubtedly good and we are in a situation of spending crisis, DOGE’s unorthodox methods may set a dangerous precedent for future administrations. It serves as an all purpose task force for the president to enforce his will and identify weaknesses in government spending. While past presidents have been frustrated about being stonewalled by various bureaucrats, DOGE creates an embedded network of control that makes the president’s proclamations much more effectual. While even the left appreciates cutting waste in theory, it is easy to see how such a vital approach to government could be harmful in the future. In the past, layers of inefficiency protected us from radical policies and made systemic change slow. There is no guarantee that a DOGE-type force will only be applied to cutting waste. Even DOGE’s current actions may suggest motives that are less than wholesome. Musk made sure to first attack USAID, which had recently scrutinized him for overcharging the government for Starlink he claimed he would donate. With such an atypical and unsteady start, in the future it could be used to enforce radical social policies or even set the undergirding for a military takeover. DOGE’s effectiveness is the center of its danger.

While there are dangers to be wary of, DOGE could provide a much needed reset for government waste and set the standard for fulfilling campaign promises. It often feels like once elected, presidents have their hands tied and are unable to be judged on the merits of their actions because what happens cannot truly be said to be “them.” This lack of responsibility means that the public is unsatisfied and few things actually happen in a powerful enough way that the citizen can see or feel them. The cutting of DOGE will most likely undo bureaucracies that took decades to establish, creating a new normal that will benefit even the most democratic of presidents. If this process was going through Congress, it would be impossible to make real change in four years. Our debt and interest payments are unsustainable and require this sort of radical action if our country is to continue sustaining itself rather than sinking deeper into destruction through indulgence. 

Critics and supporters of DOGE are quick to point out its unfettered nature. The critics are hesitant of its freedom from Congress and point out that it seems dangerously near an oligarchy. Supporters see it’s unfettered nature as necessary to compete with the droves of unelected officials and agencies relatively free from Congress. Countless agencies existing outside of congressional concern and control make it nearly impossible for Congress to understand what they are doing, or even which pathways they must use to rein them in. DOGE is a good solution to the fact that Congress will never have the bandwidth to understand the minutiae of waste and fraud occurring in the federal government. Additionally, much waste and lack of oversight has simple and truly bipartisan solutions. For example, the treasury not having to state what their specific payments were for should be questioned by anyone. This small administrative detail would have never been brought up in congress, but it will ultimately return so much accountability to the American people. If agencies have been able to deny the public the ability to see what’s going on, the public cannot vote accurately. The freedom of DOGE is necessary to restore faith in the government and make a new standard of transparency. Even if they overstep and do things that Congress should be responsible for, let this article’s point stand: we need more transparency and active cost cutting urgently or this country will pay for its nonchalant attitude towards responsibility.