DOGE's Final Form: How a Spectacle Became the State's Quiet Engine
What are we to make of the entity known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, at this particular juncture in the Trump administration? For a time, it captured public attention with its unconventional origins and the prominent, often theatrical, involvement of figures like Elon Musk. The image most readily conjured might be that of a tech billionaire wielding a literal chainsaw, symbolizing a disruptive, perhaps even chaotic, approach to government reform. Recent developments, including Musk's purported decision to step back from his direct government duties and various court challenges attempting to curb some of DOGE's more controversial actions, might lead some to believe that the worst excesses have subsided, replaced by a period of relative stasis or even decline for the initiative.
This perception, however, is profoundly mistaken. The reality is far more complex and, arguably, significantly more concerning. Far from receding, DOGE has achieved what might be considered its final, most effective, and most integrated form. It is no longer merely an external force or a temporary project; it has quietly and systematically permeated the very fabric of the federal government. Its objectives, once perhaps seen as distinct or driven by a specific, eccentric vision, have become increasingly indistinguishable from the broader policy goals and operational methods of the Trump administration itself. At this stage, attempting to remove DOGE from the government would be akin to trying to extract a single drop of food coloring from a glass of water – the substance has diffused throughout the entire volume, fundamentally altering its nature.
The initial, highly visible phase of DOGE, characterized by bold pronouncements and symbolic actions, served perhaps as a distraction. While the public focused on the spectacle, the organization was quietly embedding itself, shifting its focus from loud, clumsy attempts at mass firings or highly publicized takeovers to more subtle, yet deeply impactful, operations conducted largely in secrecy. The theatrics masked a strategic pivot towards leveraging data and technology to achieve its aims.
From its increasingly entrenched position, DOGE is engaged in activities that were never part of the traditional government mandate, or at least, were subject to strict limitations and oversight. One of its primary focuses has become the collection, combination, and analysis of disparate datasets from across government agencies. This information was originally gathered for specific, siloed purposes – tax collection, social security administration, immigration processing, etc. – and was never intended to be commingled and analyzed in aggregate. DOGE's work in this area raises significant privacy concerns and opens the door to potential misuse of sensitive personal information belonging to millions of Americans.
A particularly alarming application of this data strategy is its use in surveillance and enforcement. Reports indicate that DOGE has been actively using this combined data to find and surveil immigrants. This goes beyond standard immigration enforcement and suggests a systematic effort to track individuals based on aggregated government data, potentially targeting specific communities or individuals based on criteria that are not transparent or subject to public scrutiny. The implications for civil liberties and due process are profound.
Furthermore, DOGE has provided direct assistance to other government departments in pursuing politically charged objectives. The Justice Department, for instance, has received an assist from DOGE on alleged voter fraud indictments. While the specifics of this assistance may vary, the involvement of an entity focused on 'efficiency' and data aggregation in politically sensitive legal cases raises questions about the politicization of government functions and the potential for data to be weaponized for partisan ends. The very notion of 'efficiency' in this context appears to be defined not by streamlined operations or cost savings, but by the speed and effectiveness with which the administration's political agenda can be advanced.
Even if Elon Musk is, as he claims, stepping away from his direct involvement – though his meeting with House Republicans just recently suggests his influence remains – his key lieutenants and the infrastructure they have built are firmly in place. These individuals occupy critical positions within agencies that oversee the federal workforce and regulate Musk's own companies, creating potential conflicts of interest that persist regardless of Musk's official title. The intertwining of personal business interests with government roles, facilitated by the structure of DOGE, remains a significant ethical challenge.
Adding another layer of concern is the reported use of Musk's xAI Grok chatbot to analyze sensitive government data. Reuters reported that DOGE will apparently soon be using Grok for this purpose. This means that potentially millions of Americans' personal information could be used as training data for a proprietary AI model developed by a company owned by a figure closely associated with the administration's political agenda. This raises serious questions about data security, privacy, and the potential for bias in AI systems trained on sensitive government information. The idea that a tool developed by a private company, with its own commercial interests, is being used to parse and analyze the most intimate details of citizens' lives within the government is deeply troubling and highlights the blurring lines between public service and private enterprise under the DOGE framework.
Furthermore, the continued presence of unconventional figures, such as the 19-year-old who goes by Big Balls online, as central figures within DOGE underscores the non-traditional nature of the initiative and the potential for individuals with questionable qualifications or backgrounds to wield significant influence over government operations and data handling.
While there have been some victories against DOGE in the courts, these may prove to be temporary setbacks rather than definitive defeats. The Trump administration utilized DOGE as a kind of battering ram, a shock force designed to push through controversial policies and changes with overwhelming speed and disregard for established procedures or legal norms. While courts have, in some instances, held firm – a judge recently declared DOGE's attempt to take over the United States Institute of Peace headquarters unlawful, for example – the underlying policies and objectives that DOGE was used to advance still exist. The administration has demonstrated a willingness and ability to pursue these goals through alternative means, adapting its strategy when direct assaults are blocked.
This adaptability is where figures like Russell Vought come into play. Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, is widely seen as the architect of Project 2025, a comprehensive policy road map for a potential future conservative administration. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that Vought is expected to pick up DOGE's cost-cutting and government-reshaping mantle in the post-Musk era. This transition signifies a shift from the flamboyant, Musk-led phase to a more systematic, politically seasoned approach. Vought is not expected to wield a hammer, but rather a finely edged blade – a more precise, strategic tool for achieving the same ends. His involvement underscores that DOGE was never an end in itself, but a means to a larger, pre-planned objective.
Vought has been remarkably open about this strategy for months. In an interview with Fox Business anchor Larry Kudlow in March, he articulated the plan clearly: “We’re going to use all of our executive tools to make those savings permanent,” Vought stated. “We’re going to do everything we can to make sure that those are not merely something that goes on a website, but becomes permanent … We’ll work with Congress to do it, but we’ve also been aware the extent to which Congress has had a hard time passing cuts of any magnitude, and so what we want to do is everything we can to use presidential tools to bank those savings home.”
This statement reveals the core strategy: utilize executive authority to implement changes rapidly, and then work to solidify those changes, ideally through legislation, but relying on executive actions if Congress proves resistant. The only part of this plan that may not have gone exactly as Vought anticipated is that Congress might be more amenable to significant cuts and restructuring than he initially gave it credit for. The recent passage of Donald Trump’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill by the House of Representatives, complete with provisions that significantly cut into the social safety net, demonstrates a legislative willingness to enact policies aligned with the Project 2025 agenda that DOGE was designed to facilitate.
In some critical ways, DOGE is even more effective, and therefore more dangerous, when it operates quietly, without the distracting spectacle of its early days. The public and media attention that focused on Musk's antics may have inadvertently drawn attention away from the systematic, behind-the-scenes work of embedding DOGE's principles and personnel throughout the government bureaucracy. It has always been a tool, a mechanism to achieve specific outcomes, rather than an independent engine with its own inherent purpose. The shift from a highly visible, seemingly chaotic operation led by a tech billionaire to a more integrated, less public-facing component of the administration's machinery makes it harder to track, harder to understand, and harder to oppose.
It is no longer useful or accurate to think of DOGE as a separate entity, distinct from the rest of the Trump administration. It is not merely a tech billionaire's personal strike force, though it may have originated with that appearance. It has become a fundamental means to an end, one integral part of a much larger, long-term project. This project, openly discussed by its proponents like Vought and outlined in documents like Project 2025, aims to fundamentally gut the federal government as we know it, dismantle established agencies and procedures, and redefine the social contract between the government and its citizens. This involves not just cutting budgets, but reshaping the very functions and priorities of federal agencies, often towards enforcement, surveillance, and the advancement of a specific political ideology.
Therefore, while it remains important to keep a close eye on the specific actions attributed to DOGE, to continue investigating its activities, and to shine a light on what it does in the dark corners of government, it is equally crucial to never lose sight of the larger project it serves. The danger is not just in the specific, often bizarre, actions of DOGE itself, but in the systematic, strategic effort to reshape the entire federal apparatus. A fool with a chainsaw, while capable of causing damage, is ultimately limited in scope. This is nothing compared to the full, coordinated power of the state, quietly repurposed and wielded to achieve a radical transformation.
The integration of DOGE's methods and goals into the broader administration strategy means that even if the name 'DOGE' fades from public discourse, its legacy and operational principles will persist. The use of aggregated data for surveillance, the leveraging of AI for government functions with insufficient oversight, the placement of politically aligned individuals in key bureaucratic roles, and the strategic use of executive power to bypass traditional checks and balances are all tactics that have been amplified and normalized under the DOGE banner. These tactics can and will continue to be employed, regardless of who is nominally in charge or what the initiative is called.
Consider the implications of using AI models like Grok, developed by private entities, to analyze sensitive government data. This practice raises fundamental questions about data ownership, security, and the potential for foreign influence or commercial exploitation of government information. It also highlights the risks of relying on tools whose internal workings and biases may not be fully transparent or auditable by government watchdogs. The 'efficiency' gained through such methods may come at the cost of accountability and public trust.
The focus on data aggregation and surveillance, particularly targeting vulnerable populations like immigrants, represents a significant expansion of state power. By combining datasets that were previously separate, the government gains an unprecedented ability to track, profile, and target individuals. This capability, once built, can be easily repurposed for other objectives, potentially impacting civil liberties far beyond the initial targets. The quiet nature of this data work makes it particularly insidious, as it lacks the public visibility and debate that might accompany more overt policy changes.
The connection to Project 2025 is perhaps the most critical element in understanding DOGE's true significance. Project 2025 is not a secret plan; it is an openly published blueprint for a conservative takeover and restructuring of the federal government. It details specific policy changes, personnel recommendations, and administrative actions designed to dismantle agencies, eliminate regulations, and consolidate executive power. DOGE, in this context, appears to have been a pilot program, a testing ground for implementing some of the more radical ideas outlined in Project 2025, particularly those related to workforce reduction, data utilization, and the assertion of executive control over the bureaucracy. Russ Vought's role as both a key figure in Project 2025 and the expected successor to DOGE's mission underscores this direct link.
Vought's strategy of using executive tools to make changes permanent is a direct challenge to the traditional balance of power and the concept of a stable, non-partisan civil service. By implementing changes through executive orders, reorganizations, and appointments, an administration can bypass the legislative process and make it significantly harder for subsequent administrations to reverse course. This approach, combined with efforts to reduce the size and influence of the career civil service, aims to create a government that is more responsive to the political will of the executive and less constrained by institutional knowledge, established procedures, or independent expertise.
The passage of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' in the House, with its deep cuts to the social safety net, demonstrates that the legislative branch can also be a willing partner in this project. While Vought initially expressed caution about Congress's ability to pass significant cuts, the political landscape has proven potentially more favorable than anticipated. This means that the goals of Project 2025, initially advanced through DOGE's executive actions, can also be codified into law, making them even more difficult to undo.
The narrative of DOGE's evolution is a cautionary tale about how disruptive, seemingly chaotic initiatives can mask a deeper, more strategic agenda. The initial focus on Musk's personality and the spectacle of 'efficiency' obscured the systematic work of embedding new operational principles and personnel within the government. As the spectacle fades, the underlying structure and capabilities remain, integrated into the state's core functions.
Ultimately, the danger posed by DOGE is not just about a specific department or a particular set of policies. It is about a fundamental shift in how government operates, prioritizing speed and political alignment over expertise, transparency, and accountability. It is about the potential for data and technology to be used not for public good, but for surveillance and control. It is about a long-term project to redefine the relationship between the government and its citizens, reducing the scope of public services and expanding the power of the executive. Keeping a watchful eye on the remnants and evolution of DOGE, and more importantly, on the broader Project 2025 agenda it serves, is essential for understanding the ongoing efforts to reshape the American state.
The Chatroom
What do you think comes next with DOGE and Elon Musk? Share your thoughts.
WIRED Reads
- DOGE Used a Meta AI Model to Review Emails From Federal Workers: Materials viewed by WIRED show that DOGE affiliates within the Office of Personnel Management tested and used Meta’s Llama 2 model to review responses to the infamous “Fork in the Road” email.
- FEMA Has Canceled Its 4-Year Strategic Plan Ahead of Hurricane Season: Multiple FEMA employees tell WIRED that they did not know of another time when a strategic plan was rescinded without another in place.
- What It’s Like to Interview for a Job at DOGE: WIRED spoke with someone who applied for a job at Elon Musk’s so-called DOGE and discussed the five-step hiring process.
What Else We’re Reading
- 🔗 Trump Administration Says It Is Halting Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students: This is a massive escalation in the Trump administration’s assault on universities. (The New York Times)
- 🔗 Musk’s DOGE Expanding His Grok AI in US Government, Raising Conflict Concerns: DOGE will apparently soon be using Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok to analyze federal government data. No conflict here, of course. (Reuters)
- 🔗 The Case of the ‘Lost’ FOIA Requests: A few months ago, a number of FOIA requests at federal agencies were lost. The data was compromised or deleted by two convicted hackers. (Bloomberg)
The Download
This week on our flagship Uncanny Valley podcast, Katie Drummond, Lauren Goode, and Michael Calore debated whether using AI in school is actually cheating. Listen now.
Thanks again for subscribing. You can find me on Bluesky or on Signal at barrett.64.