Posted on 10/15/2026 12:05:05 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The effort’s biggest cuts were to the civil service—and they worked.
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) went from an inside joke about a Musk-favored cryptocurrency, Dogecoin, to the biggest story in Washington to a near-nonentity—all in under a year. During DOGE’s whirlwind tour in power, the press highlighted its improbable promises of trillions of dollars in savings, its exaggerations of the savings it did achieve, and its occasional naivete about the politics and policy of Washington.
Yet the media spent so much time disputing DOGE’s claims that they largely ignored how it did change spending. In the end, while DOGE made only modest reductions in government contracting and a handful of cuts to government grants, it had a massive impact on the federal civil service. Before Trump took office, the civil service hit a modern peak of more than 2.3 million employees. Since then, it has shrunk by more than 270,000 people, a 12 percent drop—the fastest decline in federal employment since the end of World War II.
DOGE foes succumbed to their own hyperbole about the workforce downsizing, with many predicting a collapse of basic government functions. “How many people can the federal government lose before it crashes?” the Brookings Institution fretted late last year. Such dire predictions have since gone conspicuously quiet. By most indications, the federal government is running much as it did before. Some critics may have to admit: the DOGE workforce cuts worked.
In November 2024, soon after Donald Trump’s reelection, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy announced their plan for DOGE in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.They described the initiative as a “lean team of small-government crusaders,” working to “cut the federal government down to size.” They promised to collaborate...
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The ultimate achievement is putting those in jail who abused the system. Until then it’s all theater.
Kudos to Elon and D.O.G.E. team members. They have Big Balls too.
DOGE foes succumbed to their own hyperbole about the workforce downsizing, with many predicting a collapse of basic government functions. “How many people can the federal government lose before it crashes?” the Brookings Institution fretted late last year.
Two surprising areas of shrinkage were information technology (17,000 fewer positions) and contracting (slightly fewer than 7,000).
I'd counter that by pointing out that after USAID was exposed and defunded leftist activities across the globe were curtailed. Did you miss the lack of massive violent protests this summer?
Everything people wanted done hasn't been done; it's been a lot more effectual than simple theater, though.
There’s a Tesla dealership down the road from me....for the second week in a row about a half dozen geriatrics were outside protesting...”Elon bad!!! “Trump bad!!”
And for the second week in a row i went and counter protested...last week i brought a Trump flag but this week i parked in the middle of them (there was meter parking) and brought my two sided sign which reads; “LIBERALS ARE NAZI’S” & “LIBERALS ARE TERRORISTS”..... Needless to say they were not happy...
BTW- this is in a very liberal part of NY full of illegals...of course the illegals driving landscaping trucks or taxis honked in support but i was glad to see a lot of people drive by yelling support for President Trump...
Oh yeh- and for the second week in a row, they all left once the clock hit 2PM EST....Soros doesn’t pay over time...
Many of DOGE’s claims were exaggerated, in part because of Musk’s typical exuberance. Trump famously described him as “50 percent genius, 50 percent boy.” But if one stops comparing DOGE with its promises and considers its actual effects, its record looks quite different. In about a year and a half, the federal workforce shrank by more than a tenth, while targeted grants and contracts declined as well. The government kept functioning much as before. One might call that a success.
Getting rid of USAID was monumental.
Agree. If the only thing they did was get rid of USAID it was worth it, because without USAID, there is a whole cascade of leftist money-laundering that is no longer happening and with it, we have fewer violent protests at home and fewer left-wing election winners abroad.
Elon's wiz kids went in there for the data.
Data that was collected and analyzed by Grok.
Some results are known: Dismantling Democrat international slush funds like USAID that funded marxist color revolutions. Data that was cross-referencing SSNs to dead voters rolls / illegals on voter rolls, which gave rise to Trump's demands for state voter rolls.
But most results are intentionally unknown: Data that resulted in Wigticia's James mortgage fraud indictment and impending conviction. Data that will eventually leak and then we can all build a fred database and get this discovery done ourselves.
Read Tyler Hassen's freaking brilliant DOGE hagiography "Inside DOGE: The Real Story From a Senior Insider".
His reveal aligns with everything Musk stated to Rogan during DOGE, that had Musk continued dismantling Fed fraud, that the Democrats would have killed him. Period. Paragraph.
"That's the nature of the scam...It's a bank shot
So then the then the rebuttal from the Dems is like, "Oh well, the vast majority of the people who are marked as alive in the Social Security Administration weren't receiving Social Security Administration payments." That is true...What they forgot to mention is they're getting fraudulent payments from every other government program
And that's why the the Dems were so opposed to turning off to to someone dead who was dead because it would stop the entire other all the other fraud from happening
And so but all this is it trackable like all this other fraud; if they wanted to they could chase it all down. It's not even hard, and yet they're opposing chasing it all down
They're opposing chasing it all down because it would it turn off the money magnet for the illegals
Because it's very logical to to like like I'm saying the most common sense things possible. If someone's got uh a birthday in social security that is a birthday, meaning they are older than the oldest living American or were born in the future, then you should call them and say, "Excuse me, we seem to have your birthday wrong." Uh because it says that you're 200 years old. That's all you need to do. Um, and >> and then you would remove them from the social security database and make that number no longer available for all those other government payments
And how much money are we talking
It's hundreds of billions of dollars ...And this is all traceable...Like you could hunt all [clears throat] like you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes here is what I'm saying...you just need to call the person and and say, "Excuse me, we either we we seem to have the [laughter] like we we we must have your birthday wrong because it says you're 200 years old or were born uh in the future." Um so could you tell us what your birthday is...It's it's that simple
But the all these other government payments that are available that are connected to this social security number, it seems like if you just chased that all down, Yeah you would find the widespread fraud. You would find where it's going
Well, you were very reluctant last time you were here to talk about the extent of some of the fraud because you're like, they could kill me because this is kind of...
Yeah. What I was saying is that um the like if you create if like uh I like like to be pragmatic and...um you actually can't manage to zero fraud...you can manage to low fraud number but not to zero fraud. If you manage to zero fraud, um you you you're going to push so many people over the edge who are receiving fraudulent payments that the number of inbound maniacs will be uh really hard to overcome... So I I'm I'm actually taking I think quite a reasonable position which is that we should simply reduce the amount of fraud which I think is not an extremist position ... we should aspire to, you know, have less fraud over time.Um, not that we should be ultra draconian and eliminate every last scrap of fraud.Um, which I guess would be nice to have, but but like we don't even need to go that extreme.I'm I'm saying we should just stop the blatant large scale super obvious fraud. It's a very reasonable position.
When you started into where money was going
Well, um I guess it this was I should have anticipated this, but um while most of the fraudulent government payments to especially to the NOS's go to the Democrats, most of it like I don't know for argument sake let's say 80% maybe 90% ... Um um 10 to 20% of it does go to Republicans.And so when we'd turn off funding to a fraudulent NGO, we'd get complaints from whatever the 10% of Republicans who were receiving uh the money and and they would, you know, they would very loudly complain."
Absolutely!
Thanks for posting
The cuts didn’t go anywhere near deep enough. Also they needed to scatter various government agencies to small towns across America to flush yet more of the turds down the toilet and break up their power center in DC.
don’t tell that to the crybaby know-it-alls that inhabit this site ...
Yep. Just look at Latin and South America.
ping
Thanks citizen reporter & thanks for your service to the country. Be careful. Sometimes you need counter protestors to back you up or additional arms on your body.
Appreciate it....they are all 20 years my senior....
One old guy said, “You don’t want to talk about fascism,” which which i responded, “you’re right- you don’t want to talk about fascism old man- so shut the F up!!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.