In a dramatic turn of political theater, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has been appointed to lead a new executive agency under the Trump administration’s second term: the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Sharing the stage with Musk is Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech CEO and fleeting Republican presidential candidate. The pair’s task? To streamline government operations and curb waste, fraud, and abuse in federal agencies. The name DOGE, conveniently echoing Musk’s favorite cryptocurrency, Dogecoin, adds a touch of Muskian humor to what some critics see as a paradoxical initiative.
While the concept of DOGE is novel and Musk’s involvement buzzworthy, the proposal reeks of impracticality. After all, the creation of such an agency reflects a glaring misunderstanding of how government functions—an issue that has plagued many private-sector magnates stepping into public service.
The Department of Government Efficiency sounds promising on paper. Who wouldn’t want an efficient government, free of waste and fraud? However, the acronym alone—an apparent nod to Dogecoin—sets a less-than-serious tone for a department tasked with fixing what many perceive as a mammoth problem.
The Orwellian twist here is that the proposed solution to inefficiency involves adding another layer of administrative bureaucracy. Ironically, this move runs counter to the campaign rhetoric that portrayed government bloat as the enemy. DOGE faces another fundamental problem: it lacks legal authority. Without congressional approval, the department’s existence and actions will be largely symbolic.
This situation underscores a significant reality: Congress controls the power of the purse, and the president cannot unilaterally create or fund agencies to manage federal expenditures. The lack of constitutional grounding for DOGE sets it up for significant legal challenges.
The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress control over federal spending. This principle has been a cornerstone of American governance for over two centuries. Any attempt by the executive branch to overstep its authority in budgetary matters is bound to face resistance.
Historically, such overreach has not gone unchallenged. In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon withheld funds allocated by Congress, prompting the passage of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which reaffirmed congressional authority over the budget. Similarly, during Donald Trump’s first term, his decision to withhold aid to Ukraine violated this act, resulting in his first impeachment.
For DOGE to operate effectively, it would require congressional creation and oversight—something the Trump administration has shown little interest in pursuing. Instead, the new department appears more like a political stunt than a serious attempt at reform.
Ironically, the federal government already has a highly effective agency for monitoring efficiency and rooting out waste: the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Celebrating its centennial milestone, the GAO has built a reputation for its ability to audit federal agencies, identify wasteful spending, and recommend corrective actions.
In fiscal year 2023, the GAO recovered an impressive $70 billion in taxpayer funds, yielding an astounding return of $133 for every $1 spent on its operations. With a staff of experts in diverse fields, the GAO maintains a “high risk list” of areas most prone to waste and abuse. However, many of its recommendations go unheeded, often requiring legislative action to implement reforms.
This raises a critical question: if the GAO is already fulfilling this role, why the need for DOGE? The answer lies not in functionality but in political theater. By creating a new agency, Trump and Musk can claim to be taking bold action, even if that action is redundant or ineffective.
Musk’s appointment reflects a common misconception: that government should function like a private corporation. This belief, while appealing in its simplicity, fails to account for the fundamental differences between the two realms.
- Profit vs. Public Interest: Corporations prioritize profit, while governments are driven by the public good—a goal that often involves inefficiencies by design, such as ensuring equity and access.
- Authority Constraints: CEOs wield near-absolute power in their companies, but public officials operate within a web of checks and balances.
- Accountability: Public agencies are accountable to citizens, Congress, and the courts, whereas private companies answer primarily to shareholders.
Musk’s corporate achievements—building electric cars, sending rockets to space, and popularizing cryptocurrencies—do not necessarily translate into effective governance. The skills required to innovate in Silicon Valley differ markedly from those needed to navigate the complexities of federal bureaucracy.
If the goal is to improve government efficiency, adding a superficial agency like DOGE is not the answer. Instead, reforms must begin with Congress, the entity constitutionally responsible for oversight and funding.
One practical approach would be to enhance the GAO’s authority and resources. With a proven track record and a century of experience, the GAO is well-positioned to tackle inefficiency on a larger scale. Congress could:
- Expand GAO’s Mandate: Empower the agency to enforce its recommendations, ensuring that identified problems are addressed.
- Streamline Legislative Oversight: Reduce duplication among congressional committees to ensure focused attention on GAO findings.
- Increase Transparency: Make GAO reports more accessible to the public to build accountability and trust.
- Such measures would strengthen existing mechanisms rather than creating redundant structures like DOGE.
Ultimately, the creation of DOGE underscores the disconnect between campaign rhetoric and the realities of governance. The department serves as a symbol of bluster rather than substance, appealing to a base eager for bold solutions while ignoring the practicalities of implementation.
Americans deserve more than symbolic gestures and hollow promises. Tackling waste, fraud, and abuse requires serious leadership, informed by a deep understanding of how government works—not gimmicks and grandstanding. If Musk and Ramaswamy want to make a real impact, they would do well to focus on strengthening existing institutions like the GAO rather than inventing powerless new ones.
As the DOGE experiment unfolds, it may serve as a cautionary tale: that efficiency cannot be achieved through superficial reforms but requires a commitment to substantive change, grounded in the realities of governance and the principles of the Constitution.
