Anatomy of a Slogan: Suggestions for the ‘Efficiency Department’

President-elect Donald Trump issued a press release yesterday (Nov. 12), announcing that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will lead an external advisory group to create a “Department of Government Efficiency,” a proposed agency aimed at streamlining federal operations and reducing bureaucracy. While the high-profile names suggest ambition, the statement is short on concrete steps and long on buzzwords, making the proposal feel more like an infomercial than a credible policy initiative. Exaggerated and lacking a professional tone, the language leans into hyperbole with repeated references to the ‘Great Elon Musk’ and ‘American Patriot Vivek Ramaswamy,’ suggesting a reliance on spectacle and shock value. The author—exuding an almost surreal blend of bravado, hero worship and populist sloganeering—seems to target a base that responds to anti-establishment sentiments and forgives the absence of clear planning. It’s a curious choice of language—as if we’re suddenly reading a comic book instead of a presidential statement.

Suggested Edits & Improvements to Trump’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Press Release

• Header: The “STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP” could use some gravitas. Center it, bold it, give it some breathing room—make it look presidential instead of something slapped onto a flyer. Consider reducing the size of the logo or separating it from the body to avoid a crowded look at the top of the page; it’s a branding overload that dilutes the whole message.
• Tone: Calling Elon Musk “the Great” smacks of high-school-level hyperbole. “Prominent entrepreneur Elon Musk” would do just fine without sounding like we’re introducing a circus act. Vivek Ramaswamy as “American Patriot”? We’re in parody territory. A straightforward “Vivek Ramaswamy, a committed public servant” balances respect and professionalism. Avoid informal language like “This will send shockwaves through the system.” Dial it down a notch; you’re not announcing a sequel to Top Gun. Consider rephrasing it to something like, “This initiative is expected to create significant changes in government operations.”
• Clarity: The acronym “DOGE” for “Department of Government Efficiency” feels forced and seems to be chosen more for its meme appeal than relevance. Consider a straightforward acronym or simply writing “Department of Government Efficiency” to maintain clarity. Better yet, rename this altogether, grounded in the seriousness a federal department should exude. “Department of Government Efficiency” is like saying “Department of Making Things Work Right.” A credible alternative could be something like the “Office of Government Optimization” or “Agency for Public Efficiency”—still a little ambitious but less of a cartoonish oxymoron. When you’re talking about an entire department tasked with “efficiency,” naming it in a streamlined and professional way would be the first step toward actually inspiring confidence.
• Basic Grammar: Change “Federal Agencies – Essential to the ‘Save America’ Movement” to “Federal agencies—an essential part of the ‘Save America’ movement.” This improves grammatical accuracy and flow. It’s amazing what a difference proper punctuation can make in taking this from shouting at the reader to something that sounds intentional. In “drive large scale structural reform,” add a hyphen to make it “large-scale structural reform.” It’s basic, but the basics keep things from looking amateurish.
• Style: “Politicians have dreamed about the objectives of ‘DOGE’ for a very long time.” Dreamed? Are we in Neverland? Try “envisioned,” which sounds far more professional, less like wishful thinking, and more like a strategic aspiration. “Slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures” can be rephrased to “reduce regulatory burdens and optimize expenditures” to bring it into the realm of actual policy language.
• Redundant & Repetitive Phrasing: The phrase “these two wonderful Americans” is redundant and informal. Stick to “Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.” They don’t need a cheerleader—they need a credible introduction. Overusing phrases like “massive waste and fraud” doesn’t make it sound any scarier the second or third time around. Once is enough; anything more sounds desperate.
• Numbers & Dates: Use a consistent format for numbers and monetary amounts. Instead of “6.5 Trillion Dollars,” use “$6.5 trillion” for clarity and consistency with standard financial notation. Nothing says “serious policy discussion” like getting the notation right. Instead of tying it to July 4, 2026, which sounds like something pulled straight from a “1776” revival, say “by mid-2026.”
• Substance & Specificity: Provide more details on how Musk and Ramaswamy will lead this initiative beyond simply “making changes.” Briefly outline expected steps, goals, or focus areas for added credibility. Telling us they will “make changes” is about as specific as saying “things will be different.” What changes? Provide a hint of a plan. Stating that the Department of Government Efficiency will work with “existing departments” to avoid redundancy or conflict is the kind of irony only government bureaucracy could achieve.
• Call to Action: “I am confident they will succeed!” sounds like a cheer from the bleachers, not a closing statement from a president. Try something with a little more gravitas, like “I have full confidence in their ability to achieve these essential reforms.”
• Readability: Break it down. This release begs for bullet points or subheadings to avoid the impression of a wall of words. Key initiatives need emphasis; this jumble of phrases is about as organized as a basement file cabinet.
• Just Don’t: “The Manhattan Project of our time” is a heavy comparison with strong historical connotations. Given the nature of the reforms, this might sound too exaggerated. Consider rephrasing as “a transformative initiative in government efficiency.”

In short, if this press release aimed for seriousness, it missed by a mile. The tone veers into fanfare territory, and the substance is thin at best. A little tightening, a lot of professional restraint, and a sense that this is serious business could take this from a flashy PR stunt to something that actually resonates. As it stands, this document reads like a loud announcement with an echoing emptiness behind it.