The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has captured the public’s imagination with its audacious mission to streamline federal government operations. The duo brings a wealth of entrepreneurial experience, as well as charisma, to their new roles. However, their early rhetoric is setting an antagonistic tone toward federal workers, which threatens to undermine DOGE’s goals.
Past deregulatory efforts that succeeded relied heavily on the cooperation and buy-in of civil servants. For DOGE to avoid becoming a symbol of partisan animosity, Musk and Ramaswamy should change their approach. Fortunately, there is still time to do so. But they need to recognize that alienating the workforce they aim to reform is counterproductive.
Stop the Antagonism
The duo’s public statements have bordered on being outright hostile toward federal employees. Ramaswamy has championed a “slash and burn” strategy to achieve sweeping workforce reductions and spending cuts. This is in line with the pair’s goal of “large-scale firings,” as outlined in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece. This kind of rhetoric may appeal to a segment of the electorate, but it will create unnecessary resistance from those within the government who will be essential to meaningful reforms.
In 2019, for example, Idaho faced an unprecedented regulatory challenge when the state legislature failed to reauthorize the state administrative code. Initially, this provoked a sense of chaos and concern among state employees. But civil servants quickly pivoted to view the situation as an opportunity to simplify and streamline regulations. Their active involvement made Idaho’s regulatory overhaul a success.
Red tape reduction efforts in Idaho were assisted when bureaucrats were incentivized with “golden scissors” awards for identifying and cutting wasteful regulations. A similar reward structure was implemented in British Columbia, Canada in the early 2000s. These examples underscore how reforms succeed when the people who must implement them are engaged and rewarded, not vilified.
The Role of Schedule F
The revival of Schedule F, which reclassifies certain civil service roles to make them easier to hire and fire, is a likely element of DOGE’s strategy. On the one hand, the Schedule F classification is a welcome acknowledgement that many civil service roles involve policymaking rather than neutral administration. On the other hand, its potential to foster fear and resentment among civil servants cannot be ignored.
Career civil servants’ institutional knowledge is likely to be indispensable to DOGE’s mission, especially since DOGE currently lacks its own workforce and budget. These government workers can provide important insights into statutory authority, discretionary powers, and areas where outdated regulations stifle legislative goals or economic efficiency. If the goal is to significantly cut unnecessary regulations, DOGE will need these individuals’ help to identify what can be pared down and to defend those decisions in court.
Demonizing civil servants plays into narratives of governmental incompetence, but it also alienates moderates and will undermine bipartisan cooperation in Congress. Without broad political backing, substantive changes, such as eliminating entire federal departments or reforming entitlements, are unlikely to find the critical mass of support needed to pass legislation.
Charting a Better Path
Musk and Ramaswamy should shift their strategy from antagonism to collaboration. Here’s how they can do that.
First, engage civil servants. Create opportunities for federal workers to suggest improvements and recognize their contributions. Incentive programs, akin to Idaho and British Columbia’s golden scissors awards or possibly even bonus payments, could encourage employees to identify inefficiencies.
Second, use Schedule F wisely. Instead of wielding it as a blunt instrument, apply it selectively to empower leaders who are aligned with DOGE’s goals. Schedule F is going to take some time to implement anyway, so in the meantime, adopt a collaborative tone. Reframe public messaging to highlight partnership and shared goals with civil servants. This will reduce resistance and foster a sense of collective mission. Once regulatory reductions are achieved, then assess the extent to which staffing cuts make sense.
Finally, focus on sustainable reforms. Rather than prioritizing dramatic staff cuts, which will probably be reversed or offset by hiring more contractors, aim for targeted reductions tied to demonstrable gains in efficiency and effectiveness. To the extent staffing cuts are tied to issues of competence and waste, reforms will prove more sustainable, as there seems to be a growing consensus that it is too difficult to hire and fire federal workers.
By fostering goodwill among civil servants and leveraging their expertise, Musk and Ramaswamy can achieve meaningful, and potentially even dramatic, changes to the administrative state. But if they persist in antagonizing the workforce they will rely on, DOGE risks becoming little more than a political talking point. Success will depend not just on visionary leadership but on the ability to inspire cooperation across all levels of government.