The story of DOGE, as told by federal workers

Moral outrage and treatment of federal workers

• Many commenters describe DOGE’s execution as cruel, chaotic, and intentionally traumatizing, not just “clumsy.”
• The Wired oral history is repeatedly called stomach‑turning; people highlight psychological violence, humiliation, and deliberate shock as a political goal, tying it to Project 2025 rhetoric about “trauma” and a “second American Revolution.”
• Some push back on specific emotional anecdotes (e.g., childcare / return‑to‑office) as manipulative or ordinary workplace hardship rather than unique horrors.

Effectiveness, debt, and “efficiency”

• Several note that overall federal spending and the deficit rose, so DOGE did not materially improve fiscal sustainability; the promised $2T in cuts is called mathematically impossible given “mandatory” programs.
• Others argue “mandatory” spending (Medicare, Social Security) is politically shielded but in principle reformable via means‑testing or benefit changes.
• Clinton‑era reforms are cited as an example of slow, legal, bipartisan cost reduction versus DOGE’s slam‑and‑crash approach, which triggers lawsuits and re‑hiring costs.

Conflict of interest and Musk’s role

• A major thread debates whether DOGE served primarily to weaken regulators overseeing Musk’s companies (NHTSA, FAA, CFPB, DoE) and to destroy agencies he ideologically disliked (especially USAID).
• Evidence offered includes timing of Starship approvals, cuts to autonomous‑vehicle oversight, and untouched subsidies to Musk‑linked firms; defenders say cuts hit many agencies and bias/intent aren’t proven.
• Even some skeptics of the “pure self‑dealing” narrative still see Musk’s control as an unacceptable conflict of interest in a democracy.

Institutional damage and privatization

• Commenters highlight downstream damage: loss of USAID’s humanitarian work and soft power, gutted technical capacity, and greater dependence on high‑cost contractors.
• A DoD engineer reports that DOGE’s disruption increased red tape and contractor reliance, raising costs rather than cutting them.
• Some insist much of what was cut was unnecessary “gravy train” spending, arguing painful disruption is inevitable: “you have to break eggs.” Critics counter this produced mess, not an omelette.

Larger political and structural questions

• Ongoing debates over whether the US government is actually “bloated” (headcount vs population and GDP), how much propaganda shapes anti‑government sentiment, and whether “most Americans want smaller government” is even true.
• Several see DOGE as precedent‑setting oligarchic capture: a billionaire effectively “buying” a federal department, normalizing the idea that mega‑donors get structural power.
• Others focus on what to do next: voting, organizing, local civic engagement, and building thoughtful reform efforts (e.g., US Digital Service) instead of WWE‑style “bomb throwers.”