Cut smart, not blind: How DOGE should be approaching government waste

The Trump administration’s focus on reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy is a worthwhile effort. But its current plans for broad, indiscriminate cuts risk undermining critical government functions.

A more prudent approach would involve targeted reductions that address wasteful spending while bolstering high-value programs essential to national security, public health and economic stability.

Certain programs within the federal government are undeniably wasteful and merit reevaluation. A prominent example is NASA’s continued reliance on the Space Launch System for the Artemis moon landing program. That system, conceived in 2011, has already cost taxpayers $11.8 billion in development expenses, and each launch is projected to cost roughly $2 billion.

In comparison, Elon Musk's Starship, which aims to achieve full reusability, offers a starkly more economical alternative. Although recent Starship launches have cost an estimated $100 million each, Musk anticipates reducing this to as little as $10 million per launch. The stark contrast in costs highlights the inefficiency of relying on the Space Launch System when more cost-effective private-sector solutions are available. Transitioning to Starship or similar systems could save billions of dollars and exemplifies precisely the kind of efficiencies the Trump administration should prioritize.

Yet some areas of federal government activity actually demand increased funding to fulfill their missions effectively and, perhaps counterintuitively, to save money.

One such area is the fight against the opioid epidemic — specifically, the trafficking of synthetic opioids like fentanyl, which President-elect Donald Trump has strongly endorsed. Fentanyl, which is up to 50 times stronger than heroin, has fueled an alarming rise in overdose deaths in the U.S. To combat this crisis, the Treasury Department created a Counter-Fentanyl Strike Force, pooling resources from the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. This task force aims to disrupt the financial networks that sustain fentanyl production and trafficking, and has recently frozen assets and dismantled key financial hubs linked to cartel operations.

Reducing funding or personnel for such an initiative would undermine its capacity to combat one of the nation’s most pressing public health threats.

Medicare fraud, a major concern for Trump, is another critical area requiring greater investment to snuff out. Fraudulent schemes illustrate the vulnerability of federal programs to exploitation. For example, Lincare, a major provider of home oxygen equipment, faced lawsuits over claims it defrauded Medicare by improperly billing for services and products. In one settlement, the company agreed to pay $26 million to resolve allegations of fraudulent practices, highlighting systemic vulnerabilities in Medicare’s oversight mechanisms.

Without sufficient auditors and compliance officers, the federal government cannot adequately detect and deter such fraud. Thus, investing in oversight could save taxpayers billions annually and protect Medicare’s solvency for future generations.

The IRS is another example of this. During his first term, Trump proposed $362 million in additional IRS enforcement funding, arguing that effective tax collection yields far more revenue than it costs. Evidence supports this view. A recent analysis showed that enhanced IRS funding during the Biden administration boosted tax enforcement, improving collections from tax evaders and expanding taxpayer services. For every dollar spent on enforcement, the IRS collected at least $5 in additional revenue.

Furthermore, the increased resources allowed the IRS to modernize outdated systems, making it easier for taxpayers to access services and reducing processing times for returns. Cutting IRS resources, in contrast, would widen the tax gap, benefiting those who cheat the system at the expense of law-abiding Americans.

Despite these clear examples of programs that deliver a strong return on investment, the new administration’s primary tool for rationalizing the government — the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, headed by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy — seems dead-set on across-the-board reductions. As part of this, universal return-to-office mandates are intended to induce federal employees to quit.

These mandates, whose goal will be to reduce federal workforce numbers, carry unintended consequences. Skilled professionals, particularly those in information technology and cybersecurity roles, are among the first to leave federal service when flexible work options are rescinded. This attrition poses significant risks to national security, especially as cyber threats from adversaries such as China, Russia, North Korea and Iran grow more sophisticated.

Federal agencies have repeatedly warned that maintaining a robust cybersecurity posture requires retaining top talent, which often hinges on offering competitive work conditions, including remote flexibility.

Indiscriminate cuts to federal agencies risk crippling essential services. The IRS, for instance, could lose its ability to enforce tax laws effectively, leading to billions in uncollected revenue. Public health programs combating fentanyl trafficking and Medicare fraud could falter without adequate staffing and funding. These reductions would not only hurt the government’s ability to protect Americans but could also increase the financial burden on taxpayers by widening the tax deficit and forcing costly interventions in the future.

A more effective strategy would focus on targeted reforms that align with Trump’s stated goals of fiscal responsibility and national strength. One option would be to implement zero-based budgeting — a method where each federal program must justify its funding from scratch rather than relying on historical appropriations.

This approach forces agencies to demonstrate the value of their expenditures and prioritize high-performing programs. Another solution is to use advanced data analytics to identify inefficiencies and fraud within federal operations. Tools such as artificial intelligence can sift through vast datasets to uncover patterns of waste or abuse, enabling more precise interventions.

In contrast, indiscriminate cuts and (even worse) hostility toward government workers are ultimately counterproductive. They risk increasing tax burdens, weakening national security, and undermining critical public services.

Instead, the Trump administration should pursue a disciplined strategy that eliminates waste while strengthening programs essential to the nation’s health, safety, and economic competitiveness. This approach not only ensures fiscal responsibility but also aligns with the administration’s broader vision of a leaner, more effective federal government.

By focusing on targeted reforms, the Trump administration can achieve meaningful reductions in bureaucracy while preserving and enhancing the government’s ability to serve the American people. That is what government efficiency looks like.

Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller "Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams."