The Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, led by tycoon Elon Musk, has fired (or, in some cases, forced to quit) an estimated 100,000 members of the US federal workforce.

The widescale cost-cutting measure has sent shockwaves throughout Washington, sparking fierce debate over whether DOGE is fulfilling its mandate or overstepping its bounds in pursuit of efficiency.

Supporters argue that bloated agencies needed reform, so eliminating redundant roles was only necessary. Critics, however, see the mass firings as reckless since they have left essential government agencies vulnerable and high-value workers displaced. All this without a clear plan for continuity.

Was the exercise a necessary adjustment for a government bogged down by inefficiency, or does it mark a troubling shift toward a corporate-style purge of public employees?

The answer could shape the future of government work – and the role of efficiency in public service – for years to come.

DOGE was established to streamline bureaucratic operations and eliminate inefficiencies in the federal government. Initially hailed as a bold step towards modernisation, it was tasked with identifying redundancies, implementing cost-cutting measures, and introducing private-sector-inspired management strategies.

Some observers point to the growing influence of corporate-style governance in federal agencies, questioning whether DOGE’s methods align with the complexities of public administration.

With public trust in government institutions already fragile, the department’s actions have reignited a larger debate: should efficiency come at the expense of stability? And is there an inherent risk in applying private-sector efficiency models to public service?

DOGE layoffs: The scope and immediate impact

The recent layoffs were staggering in both scale and speed. Reports indicate that thousands of federal employees were dismissed within days, with entire divisions downsized or eliminated.

Many received little warning – some were informed via automated emails, while others lost access to government systems overnight.

US President Donald Trump has defended the move, citing the department’s mandate to eliminate inefficiencies. However, critics argue the cuts were indiscriminate and politically motivated.

Government watchdogs, such as the Treasury Department’s inspector general, and federal employee unions such as the AFGE have raised concerns about the legality of certain measures, particularly around DOGE gaining access to sensitive information as well as discounting the years of expertise honed by career civil servants.

Legal challenges may be on the horizon, with some terminated employees exploring the option of a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal or lack of due process.

The bigger picture: Efficiency vs stability

Proponents argue that the federal government has been overdue for a structural overhaul, with layers of bureaucracy slowing progress and inflating budgets. By cutting redundant positions and incorporating automation, DOGE is seen as a test case for a leaner, more agile government.

However, efficiency should not come at the expense of stability. Government agencies, after all, provide essential services that affect millions of citizens.

Disrupting government functions in the name of streamlining operations could lead to unintended consequences, such as slower public services, lower morale among remaining employees, and increased reliance on more costly private contractors. Worse, such disruption could lead to blunders such as firing the wrong people.

This month, agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Nuclear Security Administration, to name a few, have had to rehire employees who were included in the mass firings despite the essential roles they played.

There is also concern that if mass firings become the norm, they could tarnish people’s perceptions of public-sector employment, deterring talented professionals from taking on government careers.

Stability, pensions, and long-term career growth – once hallmarks of federal jobs – may be eroded if abrupt job cuts continue. This could weaken the government’s ability to attract and retain highly competent workers and thus make long-term efficiency gains harder to achieve.

Another question is whether AI and automation – key drivers behind DOGE’s restructuring agenda – are ready to take over critical government functions.

While technology can optimise certain processes, even the smartest tools today lack the human judgment needed for complex policymaking, legal interpretation, and case-by-case decision-making.

A rushed transition to AI-driven governance without safeguards could create more inefficiencies than it solves.

The future of the US federal workforce

Given DOGE’s aggressive approach to slashing jobs, the future of workers in the federal government will depend on a few factors.

For one, legal challenges from displaced workers could slow or reverse some layoffs, especially if the courts find due process was ignored.

Meanwhile, congressional leaders can intervene and lawmakers can call for hearings on DOGE’s actions. If backlash grows, the US could see legislative efforts to curb future mass firings in government agencies.

On the other hand, however, if DOGE’s efficiency-first model is deemed a success, it could become a blueprint for further downsizing across both federal and state agencies. Officials may be pressured to adopt similar cost-cutting measures and shift the government towards a leaner workforce.

Ultimately, the DOGE mass firings signal an ideological battle over the role of government in the modern era.

Should public institutions be run like corporations, prioritising efficiency above all else? Or does the government have a unique responsibility to ensure stability, even at the cost of a larger workforce?