Washington Should Take Efficiency Seriously
As someone who has represented the United States abroad, first as ambassador to Hungary and later as U.S. chief of protocol, Ive seen how American leadership is measured not just by strength or ideals, but by functionality. Our allies watch how we govern ourselves. And too often, what theyve seen in recent decades is an increasingly bloated federal government, mired in duplication, inefficiency, and bureaucratic inertia.
Thats why the work of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, deserves serious consideration. Led by Elon Musk, DOGE has taken on a task that most administrations have promised but failed to achieve: modernizing how our federal government operates. It has consolidated overlapping offices, canceled wasteful contracts, sold underutilized properties, and implemented data-driven reforms, all aimed at reducing cost, improving performance, and saving taxpayer money.
Since it began in January,DOGEhas either cut or reduced grants, leases, and contracts in over 176 departments or agencies. On its website the department reports saving $160 billion. For comparison, thats more than the entire annual budget of the Department of Transportation. Even according to independent data and analysis, DOGE efforts have already generated billions in savings. This is not a theoretical exercise in reform. It is tangible, measurable, and aligned with what the American people have repeatedly said they want: a government that delivers more by doing less.
Polling backs this up. A FebruaryHarvard CAPS/Harris pollfound that 72% of Americans support the existence of an agency focused solely on eliminating waste and inefficiency in government. A clear majority (60%) said they believe DOGE is helping to rein in unnecessary federal spending. Thats not a left-wing or right-wing perspective; thats a mainstream one.
DOGEs creation may have sparked controversy, particularly among those uncomfortable with Musks unconventional approach and public persona. But we shouldnt allow style to eclipse substance. If government is functioning more effectively and at a lower cost to taxpayers, then we must look seriously at how those outcomes are being achieved, and what lessons can be responsibly applied more broadly.
Having served in federal roles that demand strict compliance with law, protocol, and tradition, I know firsthand that reform must operate within the boundaries of our values. Rule of law and adherence to institutional norms are non-negotiable. Yet so, too, is the need for honest appraisal: Much of our federal bureaucracy has become outdated, sprawling, and resistant to change. Streamlining is not an assault on government. It is, in fact, an affirmation of it - an attempt to make public institutions worthy of public trust.
Of course, DOGEs approach is not without flaws. Musk himself has candidly admitted as much. Critics have questioned whether all reported savings are fully verified, and transparency around decision-making needs improvement. Oversight is not only appropriate - its essential. But the existence of imperfections should not be a pretext for dismissing a bold, productive effort to modernize government. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of progress.
Its a time-honored tradition in Washington for good ideas to wither under partisan suspicion. But government reform should not be the property of any one party. For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have campaigned on promises to cut waste, modernize services, and rein in unnecessary spending.
DOGE is doing what many in both parties have failed to do: take those promises seriously.
The real question is not whether DOGE is controversial - it is. The real question is whether it is effective. So far, the evidence suggests that it is. The challenge ahead is to preserve that momentum, institutionalize the best of what DOGE is doing, fix mistakes, and ensure it is guided by transparency, accountability, and legal rigor.
This moment presents a rare opportunity: the chance to reshape how government operates in a way that is more responsive to the people it serves. Instead of vilifying reformers, we should come together around a shared goal that transcends politics: building a government that works.
If DOGE continues to help us get there, it deserves not derision, but support.
Nancy Brinker served as U.S. ambassador to Hungary and as chief of protocol during the George W. Bush administration. She is the founder of the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and the Promise Fund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Restaurants from IHOP to Chipotle sound alarm over tariffs spooking customers into staying home
Fast-food chains from IHOP to Chipotle are feeling the pain as fears about stubbornly high prices and a shaky job market have pushed more Americans to eat at home. Americans ate 1 billion fewer meals at restaurants between January and March than they did the year before, according to data from market research firm Circana. That decline has set off alarm bells for executives at IHOP and Applebee's owner Dine Brands, Sweetgreen, Wendy's, Denny's and Chipotle Mexican Grill – all of whom have warned that their sales are being hammered by an increasingly cautious US consumer. Advertisement 3 IHOP and Applebee's owner Dine Brands warned that sales are being hammered by increasingly cautious consumers. Christopher Sadowski Denny's CEO Kelli Valade last week nodded to 'a very choppy consumer environment' while chief financial officer Robert Verostek blamed 'macroeconomic changes' for the company's volatile July sales. McDonald's has seen its US sales bounce back as the Happy Meal maker leaned into value to attract budget-conscious customers. But CEO Chris Kempczinski said visits from low-income customers plunged by 'double-digits' between April and June as their incomes declined. Advertisement 'The result of that is you're seeing people either skip occasions, so they're skipping…breakfast or they're trading down either within our menu or they're trading down to eating at home,' Kempczinksi said. 'This bifurcated consumer base is why we remain cautious about the overall near-term health of the US consumer,' he added. McDonald's has ramped up its value offerings and kept its wildly popular $5 Meal Deal on the menu to 're-engage' with low-income diners – who typically visit the Big Mac chain more frequently than middle- and high-income counterparts, Kempczinski said. Advertisement Rivals have been quick to release their own value meals this year – from Taco Bell's Luxe Boxes to $5 meal combos from Burger King and Wendy's. 3 McDonald's has seen its US sales bounce back as it leaned into value to attract budget-conscious customers. REUTERS But visits to US restaurants have fallen 1% so far this year compared to 2024, according to market research firm Black Box Intelligence. Fast-food joints have suffered the worst losses, with traffic down 2.3% in the second quarter compared to last year. Advertisement Even those who have continued to dine out are buying fewer beverages and appetizers or 'trading down' to cheaper menu items, Dine Brands CEO John Peyton said. Wingstop CEO Michael Skipworth said the chicken-wing chain had seen 'softness' among low-income diners, adding that the company's research uncovered 'concerns about elevated prices, future job prospects, and general anxiety about the future.' Food inflation has slowed, with prices remaining flat in July from the month before, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Tuesday. 3 Like many other fast-food chains, Taco Bell released meal deals this year in an attempt to win over customers. Christopher Sadowski Yet the cost of eating out has continued to outpace the cost of eating at home – rising 0.3% in July while the food at home index fell 0.1%, according to Tuesday's report. The costs of dining out are expected to continue outpacing those of eating at home, according to the Department of Agriculture. 'It's going to take a lot of levers being pulled in order to get consumers more comfortable to spend money out of home. And it's not going to be this year,' Sally Lyons Wyatt, a Circana adviser who specializes in the food service industry, told the Financial Times. Executives have said they remain hopeful that once the anxiety around tariffs eases, customers will return to restaurants and drive-thru lanes. Advertisement 'I think much of what we're experiencing right now is due to macro and the consumer, the low-income consumer is looking for value,' Chipotle CEO Scott Boatwright said last month. 'I think as sentiment improves, the business will improve,' he added.
Los Angeles Times
28 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished' hype is just that
On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn't cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted. We're in a similar place when it comes to President Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most-dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. The estimates of these revenues from Trump world are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. It's likely this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. It's true that tariff revenue is pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share, and some American businesses might absorb the costs — for now — to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive — that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. @JonahDispatch
Scientific American
28 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'
