Rather than pushing for substantive change, the Department of Government Efficiency, under the brief stewardship of Elon Musk, has consistently opted for sensationalized gestures. Despite the undeniable need for an accountable and resourceful federal government to bolster the United States’ global standing, the department’s approach has been characterized largely by disruption. Musk’s tenure at the helm of the department had a four-month lifespan and saw an estimated $160 billion in federal spending cuts for the subsequent year. However, these savings are likely not as substantial as suggested, and they fall significantly short of the $2 trillion Musk ambitiously vowed to trim from the nearly $7 trillion federal budget.
Musk’s department, commonly referred to as DOGE, has focused principally on making cuts through drastic downsizing: vast layoffs and buyouts, full-scale cancellations of government contracts, and all-encompassing spending freezes. Many are critical of DOGE, viewing it as a spectacle of efficiency rather than an earnest attempt to enhance government proficiency. It is suspected that many of these supposed ‘savings’ will be negated by negative consequences, including diminishing productivity, a higher rate of employee turnover, and loss of tax revenue.
It is abundantly clear that DOGE cannot resolve the United States’ deep-seated matters, such as leaping entitlement expenditures, deteriorating infrastructure, failing schools, a shrinking middle class, and anemic productivity growth. Solving these issues necessitates a federal government that goes beyond downsizing—it needs to be entrepreneurial, nimble, and transparent. Don’t be quick to dismiss the thought: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the 1950s, staffed by fewer than 1,000 individuals, eradicated smallpox within the U.S., averted a polio crisis, and successfully managed the Asian flu pandemic.
In 1961, within two and a half years of its inception, NASA dispatched the first American into space. By 1963, a mere three years after approval, the A-12 prototype of the SR-71 Blackbird had broken sound barriers as the first aircraft to fly at Mach 3+. Regrettably, such monumental achievements have become less common over time. Lately, the US federal government has been embroiled in a host of notorious failures, like the CDC’s initial mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), which is six years behind schedule and projected to cost $4 billion per launch.
Additionally, the F-35 fighter jet is a decade overdue and has crossed the permissible budget limit by $200 billion. The failure is largely attributable to obsolete, industrial-age management systems that prioritize procedures over performance, and rules over rationality. As a result, there has been an exponential growth of cumbersome bureaucracies. From 1998 to 2023, our analysis of data from the US Office of Personnel Management shows that the number of federal employees in managerial and administrative roles grew by 262,000, while the number of employees in all other categories decreased by 18,000.
Given this hiring trend, US government agencies now report an administrator or manager for every 1.3 non-supervisory employees, a decline from the one to 2.2 ratio in 1998. By comparison, the private sector maintains a ratio of one to five. As decision-making power deviates from specialized professionals to managers and accountants, those striving to accomplish real work are increasingly hampered by overly cautious supervisors and a culture inclined towards shifting responsibility. Thus, the crux of the issue is not that the government has too many employees—it’s that it employs too many supervisors rather than skilled workers.
To invigorate America’s federal offices, the government must move beyond mere dismantling and instead endeavor to enhance their functionality through a strategic and concerted effort. Essentially, this would entail several crucial steps. Initially, heads of agencies must focus on reducing bureaucratic excess. Every federal agency should be mandated to track and report the expenses incurred due to administrative rituals of minimal or no value, such as wasted hours and resources on redundant reviews and unnecessary approval complexity. Any agencies that fail to demonstrate considerable progress should face directed funding cuts.
Secondly, a dramatic reduction in the managerial and administrative ranks within the federal government is essential. Agencies should be directed to increase spans of control – the number of subordinates under each manager – and should enforce a five-year halt on new administrative positions. The number of management roles should be decreased by no less than two-thirds. Ultimately, managers and administrators should make up no more than 20% of the federal workforce, comparable to the private sector’s ratio.
Thirdly, agencies should be motivated to set and pursue objectives that are as ambitious as landing on the moon. Operation Warp Speed – the record-breaking sprint to formulate and distribute COVID-19 vaccines – serves as a testament to the potential of committing to ambitious targets and empowering teams to devise the most effective solutions. Similar goals can be set by other departments. For instance, the Defense Department could aim to halve the development time for major weaponry systems, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development could aim to eradicate America’s deficit of four million housing units within four years.
Fourthly, every segment of every agency must operate as a hotbed for fresh ideas. By fostering an environment of freedom that inspires experimentation, the government can unlock innovations, ranging from specialized scout teams to accelerated equipment repairs via 3D printing. Furthermore, implementing innovative personnel practices, like performance-based pay and flexible job descriptions, can drive employee productivity and retain top talents.
Fifthly, it’s imperative that each government program is compelled to demonstrate its impact on the real world. To this end, a comprehensive system for aligning funding with performance outcomes should be established. Lastly, every federal appointee ought to spend their initial 100 days in consultation with frontline employees, investigating obstacles to efficient work and creativity constraints. Within every organization, there are people brimming with ideas and frustrated by existing inefficiencies—listening to them is vital.
To uphold its economic and geopolitical dominance, the US must restore its aptitude for audacity and innovation. This will necessarily demand a more efficient and effective federal government, not merely a downsized one.