Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): Pros and Cons
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71426/jassh.v2.i2.pp114-126Keywords:
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Government efficiency, Public trust, Non-statutory governance, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Federal workforce, Deregulation.Abstract
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was created as part of an unprecedented federal reform initiative via Executive Order 14158 on January 7th, 2025. It is the focus of the current study to analyze the effects of DOGE’s budget cuts/force reductions on public institutional trust as well as the risks to governance and accountability due to its non-statutory operational structure. Using data from various organizations including the Congressional Budget Office, Pew Research Center, Gallup, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the researcher used a documentary analysis approach to evaluate the outcomes of DOGE throughout fiscal year 2025. Pearson Correlation Analysis was conducted to test hypothesis one, relating the rapid deregulation and budget cuts by DOGE to public institutional trust levels amongst affected populations. Systematic benchmarking using OECD public governance principles were utilized to test hypothesis two. Paradoxically, DOGE achieved its goal of decreasing federal spending; however, federal spending actually rose by $301 billion for FY 2025 and experienced large work force reductions. In addition, public institutional trust dropped to 17% by the end of December 2025 which represents an all-time low. Additionally, DOGE did not meet all seven OECD public governance benchmarks resulting in higher governance and accountability risk compared to a statutory framework. Overall, the results indicate that the structural shift away from traditional statutory-based government structures may have negative consequences towards building public trust in federal agencies versus enhancing it. The implications are significant toward future presidential reform efforts demonstrating that institutionally accountable based frameworks are crucial within democratic governance.
References
[1] Congressional Budget Office (CBO). H.R. 1048, DETERRENT Act As ordered reported by the House Committee on Education and Workforce on February 12, 2025. [Online] Available from:https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61244
[2] Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE Savings Tracker - Wall of Receipts. Washington, DC [Internet]. 2025. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://doge.gov/savings
[3] Fowler S, Allyn B. DOGE wants to cut $1 trillion this year. NPR [Internet]. 2025 Mar 6. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.npr.org/2025/03/06/nx-s1-5318072
[4] Fowler S. DOGE released data about federal contract savings. It doesn't add up. NPR [Internet]. 2025 Feb 19. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates-savings-federal-contracts
[5] Rachamallu K, O’Connor D. Administration’s Radical Personnel Cuts Bypassed Congress and Lacked Transparency, Obscuring Impact on Public Services. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Washington, DC: CBPP [Internet]; 2026 Jan 15. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/administrations-radical-personnel-cuts-bypassed-congress-and-lacked
[6] Federal Worker Rights. DOGE's War on the Federal Workforce, by the Numbers [Internet]. 2025 Dec 18. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://federalworkerrights.com/2025/12/18/doges-war-on-the-federal-workforce-by-the-numbers/
[7] Friedman D. Competing Numbers Emerge on Federal Workforce Reductions. Federal News Network [Internet]. 2025 Aug 7. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://federalnewsnetwork.com/federal-report/2025/08/competing-numbers-emerge-on-federal-workforce-reductions/
[8] What is DOGE doing to Social Security?. Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Washington, DC: EPI [Internet]; 2025. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.epi.org/blog/what-is-doge-doing-to-social-security/
[9] Here's what the impact of layoffs and site closures at Social Security could look like. Marketplace [Internet]. 2025 Mar 21. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/03/21/social-security-doge-layoffs-site-closures
[10] Public Trust in Government: 1958-2025. Pew Research Center [Internet]; 2025 Dec 4. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/12/04/public-trust-in-government-1958-2025/
[11] Jones JM. U.S. Trust in Government Depends Upon Party Control. Gallup [Internet]. 2025 Nov 10. (Accessed on 05 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://news.gallup.com/poll/697421/trust-government-depends-upon-party-control.aspx
[12] The State of Public Trust in Government 2025. Partnership for Public Service [Internet]. 2025. (Accessed on 05 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/the-state-of-public-trust-in-government-2025/
[13] Although support for DOGE is mixed, a majority believe corruption, inefficiency, and red tape are major problems. Associated Press (AP)- NOCR [Internet]. Chicago: NORC; 2025 Jan. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://apnorc.org/projects/although-support-for-doge-is-mixed-a-majority-believe-corruption-inefficiency-and-red-tape-are-major-problems/
[14] Bongat C. Human Resources Director / HCAmag. Federal court greenlights legal challenge to DOGE's sweeping federal authority. [Internet]. 2026 Mar 24. (Accessed on 05 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.hcamag.com/us/news/general/federal-court-greenlights-legal-challenge-to-doges-sweeping-federal-authority/569680
[15] Economic Policy Institute (EPI). EO on Implementing the DOGE Workforce Optimization Initiative [Internet]. Washington, DC: EPI [Internet]; 2025. (Accessed on 05 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.epi.org/policywatch/eo-on-implementing-the-doge-workforce-optimization-initiative/
[16] O'Brien R, Summers D. New Lawsuit Argues Trump and DOGE's Government Overhaul Is Unconstitutional. NPR [Internet]. 2025 Apr 29. (Accessed on 05 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.npr.org/2025/04/29/nx-s1-5380783/trump-doge-lawsuit-federal-workers-cities
[17] CNBC. Judge Blocks Trump DOGE Plans for Mass Firing of Federal Workers [Internet]. 2025 May 23. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/23/judge-blocks-trump-federal-workforce-cuts
[18] Boehm E. After All Those DOGE Cuts, Federal Spending Still Increased by 300 Billion. Reason [Internet]. 2025 Oct 10. ((Accessed on 06 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://reason.com/2025/10/10/after-all-those-doge-cuts-federal-spending-still-increased-by-300-billion/
[19] Wikipedia. 2025 United States Federal Mass Layoffs. Wikimedia Foundation [Internet]; 2025. (Accessed on 06 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_mass_layoffs
[20] Wikipedia. Department of Government Efficiency. Wikimedia Foundation [Internet]; 2025. (Accessed on 07 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency
[21] Wikipedia. US Federal Agencies Targeted by DOGE. Wikimedia Foundation [Internet]; 2025. (Accessed on 07 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_federal_agencies_targeted_by_DOGE
[22] Encyclopaedia Britannica. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Chicago: Britannica [Internet]; 2026. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.britannica.com/topic/Department-of-Government-Efficiency-United-States
[23] OECD. Government at a Glance 2025. Paris: OECD Publishing [Internet]; 2025 Jun. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/06/government-at-a-glance-2025_70e14c6c.html
[24] OECD. Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing [Internet]; 2020. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/policy-framework-on-sound-public-governance_c03e01b3-en.html
[25] ProPublica. More Than 100 DOGE Members Tracked [Internet]. 2025 Jul. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.propublica.org
[26] Government Executive. Project 2025 Wanted to Hobble the Federal Workforce. DOGE Has Hastily Done That, and More [Internet]. 2025 Apr 9. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.govexec.com/transition/2025/04/project-2025-wanted-hobble-federal-workforce-doge-has-hastily-done-and-more/404390/
[27] NPR/OPB. DOGE Created a 'Survey of Surveys' for a Push to Cut Some Government Data Collection [Internet]. 2025 May 23. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.opb.org/article/2025/05/23/doge-started-a-survey-of-surveys-to-end-federal-data/
[28] Visual Capitalist. Visualized: DOGE's Spending Cuts vs. U.S. Federal Budget [Internet]. 2025 Jul. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-doges-spending-cuts-vs-u-s-federal-budget/
[29] Chun YH. Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2005 Feb 21; 15(4):529–557. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui030
[30] McBain L. Strategic management in the public sector [Internet]. 2010. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8510e9ef3b62b84f5da34c41a79add88384b6102
[31] Smith C. Normalizing doubt: AI, democratic confidence, and the OECD trust framework. AI & Society. 2025 Dec 11; 41(4):3741–3751. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02789-7
[32] Michaels JD. Beyond accountability: The constitutional, democratic, and strategic problems with privatizing war. Washington University Law Quarterly. 2004 [Internet];82:1001. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol82/iss3/6
[33] Löffler E. Quality awards as a public sector benchmarking concept in OECD member countries: some guidelines for quality award organizers. Public Administration and Development. 2001 Feb 1;21(1):27–40. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.167
[34] Krotoszynski Jr RJ. 13. The separation of legislative and executive powers. In: Comparative Constitutional Law. 2011. p. 234.
[35] Tooley S. Observations on the imposition of new public management in the New Zealand state education system. In: Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management. 2004. p. 233–55. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-1317(01)11053-5
[36] Thompson JR. Civil service reform is dead: long live civil service reform. Public Personnel Management. 2020 Dec 29;50(4):584–609. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020982026
[37] Molloy M. A revised legislative framework for Australian Public Service employment: The successive impacts of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth). In: ANU Press eBooks. 2007. Available from:https://doi.org/10.22459/psetfc.11.2007.04
[38] Finn D. Outcome based commissioning: lessons from contracting out employment and skills programmes in Australia and the USA. Wath-upon-Dearne: UK Commission for Employment and Skills [Internet]; 2010. 48 p. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/en/publications/outcome-based-commissioning-lessons-from-contracting-out-employme/
[39] Long CP, Sitkin SB. Institutional contradictions: a persistent threat to trust in public sector organisations. In: Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks. 2025. p. 60–75. Available from:https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802201406.00009
[40] Kovač P. Between theoretical principles and practice in Slovene regulatory impact assessment procedures. Review of Central and East European Law. 2017 Oct 15;42(2–3):215–50. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04202003
[41] Breger MJ, Edles GJ. Established by practice: the theory and operation of independent federal agencies. Administrative Law Review. 2000;52:1111.
[42] Mashaw JL. Reasonableness, accountability, and the control of administrative policy. In: Cambridge University Press eBooks. 2018. p. 77–103. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108355827.005
[43] OECD. Engaging public employees for a high-performing civil service. OECD Public Governance Reviews. 2016. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267190-en
[44] Gerson D. Leadership for a high performing civil service: Towards senior civil service systems in OECD countries [Internet]. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance. No. 40, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2020 Sep. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1787/ed8235c8-en
[45] Mursalin M, Khaeriyah K. Accountability and transparency in regional budget management for good governance. International Journal of Economics, Commerce, and Management. 2025 Oct 17;2(4):140–8. Available from:https://doi.org/10.62951/ijecm.v2i4.991
[46] Angelopoulos K, Kammas P. On the persistence of public sector efficiency and the role of historical institutional quality. In: Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks [Internet]. 2023. p. 129–48. Available from:https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839109164.00013
[47] Kosar KR. The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics [Internet]. Cornell University Library, Digital Collections@ILR 2008. (Accessed on 08 Oct. 2026). Available from:https://hdl.handle.net/1813/77615
[48] Ataribanam S, Mahama F, Dawuda A, Atugeba ILA. The influence of a normative framework on corporate governance decision-making in Ghana's public sector: The role of integrity and financial transparency of public officials. Journal of Management World. 2025 Sep 11;2025(4):169–83. Available from:https://doi.org/10.53935/jomw.v2024i4.1188
[49] Kasali K, Alarape BY, Kyei RK, Toriola GO, Alawiye PO, Adesugba F. Optimizing workforce efficiency in the United States (U.S.) federal sector: The role of predictive Analytics and AI in Human Resource (HR) Decision-Making. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation. 2025 Jan 1;XII(III):1062–8. Available from:https://doi.org/10.51244/ijrsi.2025.12030082
[50] Adepoju AS, Chinonyerem CA. Advancing good governance through AI-powered oversight in the United States: risks and opportunities for public institutions. Journal of African Advancement and Sustainability Studies. 2025 Aug 22. Available from:https://doi.org/10.70382/sjaass.v9i2.040
[51] Mashaw JL. Reasons, reasonableness, and accountability in American administrative law. In: Cambridge University Press eBooks. 2018. p. 40–76. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108355827.004
[52] Nedzela M, Balcer Y. A theoretical framework for measuring the value of job security with an application to the Canadian public service. INFOR Information Systems and Operational Research. 1982 May 1;20(2):102–115. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1080/03155986.1982.11731851
[53] Strengthening the Institutional Setting for Regulatory Reform: The Experience from OECD Countries”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 19, OECD Publishing. 2011 Feb;(19). Available from:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgglrpvcpth-en
[54] Bannister J, Olijnyk A, McDonald S. Government Accountability: Australian Administrative Law. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108147583.006
[55] Bertelli AM, Falletti V. Bureaucracy under pressure: Structural integrity and the ethics of democratic administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2025 Dec 24;92(3):350–68. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523251406200
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mohsin Tamboli (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The Journal of Applied Social Sciences and Humanities publishes all articles under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license permits others to copy, distribute, reproduce, remix, adapt, and build upon the published work for non-commercial purposes, provided appropriate credit is given to the original authors and the source. By publishing in the Journal of Applied Social Sciences and Humanities, all authors agree to these licensing terms as a condition of publication.
DOI prefix: 10.71426
