The Costs of Government Efficiency

The Trump Administration has pursued sweeping changes to the federal workforce in the name of government efficiency, raising questions about whether reducing government spending and personnel will ultimately make federal agencies more effective. Since taking office, President Donald Trump directed agencies to reduce their workforces, imposed return-to-office requirements, and weakened longstanding civil service protections. The Administration has defended these measures as necessary to eliminate government waste and improve accountability. Critics warn, however, that they threaten to drive experienced professionals out of public service and undermine agencies’ ability to fulfill their statutory responsibilities.

The Administration relied in part on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an initiative established within days of President Trump’s inauguration to identify opportunities for reducing federal spending and restructuring government operations. DOGE helped drive workforce reductions and sought to modernize government technology. Although DOGE was sunset after only ten months, its activities raised questions about political advisers’ authority to direct changes within federal agencies and whether reductions in government personnel necessarily translate into greater efficiency.

Historically, the federal civil service has operated under a merit-based system designed to ensure that government employees are selected for their qualifications rather than their political affiliations. The Pendleton Act of 1883 laid the foundation for this system, while the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 strengthened protections against political interference and created institutions to oversee federal personnel practices. These safeguards aim to preserve professional expertise and continuity across presidential administrations while maintaining the accountability of federal agencies to elected officials. The Trump Administration’s efforts to expand political control over career employees have renewed debate over how to balance these objectives.

Some observers suggest that the Administration’s workforce reductions could deprive federal agencies of valuable expertise and institutional knowledge. Other analysts raise concerns about the effects of changing working conditions on employee morale and productivity.

At the same time, scholars have identified longstanding obstacles to government effectiveness, including cumbersome hiring procedures and difficulties recruiting specialized technical talent. Some scholars argue that modernizing recruitment practices could strengthen the federal workforce, while others emphasize the importance of technological innovation that improves government services. Still other scholars stress the importance of preserving safeguards against political interference and ensuring that efficiency initiatives remain subject to appropriate oversight.

In this week’s Saturday Seminar, scholars examine how federal workforce reforms affect government expertise, independence, and administrative capacity, and consider whether efforts to make government more efficient may ultimately undermine its effectiveness.

• In an article in the Public Administration Review, Colt Jensen and Jaclyn Piatak, both of the University of North Carolina, examine public support for civil service protections against political interference. Examining data from the 2023 Cooperative Election Study, Jensen and Piatak identify broad public support for political neutrality and protections against politically motivated dismissals. They find that greater political knowledge and public service motivation are associated with stronger support for civil service protections, while political ideology is not significantly associated with respondents’ views. Jensen and Piatak recommend public education about the merit system to help build a more informed citizenry and sustain support for an independent civil service.
• In an article in the Public Administration Review, Byunggeor Moon, of Yonsei University, examines how DOGE reshaped federal agencies despite lacking formal decision-making authority. Moon proposes a theory of “advisory capture,” in which politically empowered advisers acquire de facto control over agency decisions. He argues that DOGE’s appeals to efficiency helped displace procedural safeguards as measures of legitimate government action, enabling rapid workforce reductions and institutional restructuring. Moon points to the subsequent Schedule Policy/Career rule, which stripped approximately 50,000 career federal positions of protections against at-will dismissal, as an example of informal political influence becoming formalized. He warns that courts may slow, but not prevent, institutional restructuring justified by appeals to government efficiency.
• In an article in the Public Administration Review, M. Blake Emidy, of Texas A&M University, Anmol Soni, of Louisiana State University, and Evan Mistur, of the University of Texas, examine how federal workforce departures impact agency expertise and capacity. They find that departures increased by 67 percent in 2025 compared with the previous decade. The Emidy team reports that the Deferred Resignation Program, which offered employees paid leave and benefits in exchange for their resignation, disproportionately attracted employees with higher education, technical expertise, and longer federal service. They warn that these departures threaten agencies’ organizational knowledge and ability to perform their missions. To mitigate further losses, they recommend targeted hiring for specialized vacancies and measures to preserve organizational knowledge.
• In an article in Public Personnel Management, Geneviève Morin and Étienne Charbonneau, both of École Nationale d’Administration Publique, and Carey Doberstein, of the University of British Columbia, examine federal employees’ responses to the 2025 mandate to return to the office five days per week. Analyzing federal workforce surveys, the Morin team identifies widespread frustration, perceived productivity losses, and a sense of diminished workplace autonomy. Employees described long commutes and distracting offices that interfered with their work, even as many continued attending virtual meetings. The researchers caution that their findings reflect self-selected respondents’ perceptions rather than objective measures of productivity or causal effects. They recommend involving employees in workplace decisions and maintaining flexibility to preserve morale, organizational trust, and administrative capacity.
• In a recent paper, Christos Makridis, of Arizona State University, argues that the federal government has failed to recruit adequate numbers of technically skilled employees, including artificial intelligence specialists. Following an analysis of federal hiring models, Makridis attributes recruitment failures to the rigid structure of government employment practices, which mandates time-intensive hiring practices, standardized salaries, and tenure-based promotions. To address skill shortages, Makridis recommends that agencies assess hiring authorities’ effectiveness by analyzing employee recruitment and retention rates. He concludes that investing in data analytics can help agencies identify effective recruitment practices and attract highly skilled talent.
• In a recent article in Public Administration, Donald Moynihan, of the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy, compares DOGE’s efforts to downsize the federal workforce to the civic tech movement’s proposals to improve the functioning of federal agencies. Moynihan explains that the civic tech movement believes the federal government’s choice to hire technological experts for short employment terms has caused the government’s virtual infrastructure to lag behind that of the private sector. By analyzing civic tech’s evolution, Moynihan finds that the movement’s leaders now advocate for private technologists to take on long-term roles in government. He concludes that civic tech’s low-cost solutions to improve government technology serve as an alternative to DOGE’s aggressive downsizing.