Present action plan for ‘federal government reform’
Prevent excessive regulation through administrative orders
Consideration of relocating the institution outside the capital
Control expenditures such as international organization support funds
“Eliminating the need for the Ministry of Government Efficiency”
Set a target date of July 4, 2026
photo caption
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Indian businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, who were selected as heads of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the second Donald Trump administration, presented a specific action plan to reduce the federal government. In order to adjust the number of federal civil servants, it is reported that various measures are being considered, such as eliminating telecommuting to encourage voluntary resignation, while downsizing the organization and reducing manpower by cutting federal spending.
On the 20th (local time), Musk and Ramaswami, co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency, announced their plans for federal government restructuring and deregulation through an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) titled ‘Ministry of Government Efficiency’s Plan for Government Reform’. . They wrote, “Most government executive decisions or discretionary spending are made not by a democratically elected president or his political appointees, but by millions of unelected and unappointed officials within government agencies. “This is anti-democratic,” he claimed. He went on to point out, “Entrenched bureaucracy poses an existential threat to the United States, and politicians have neglected it for too long.” He emphasized, “Because we are businessmen, not politicians, we will reduce costs (in a businessman’s way).”
Musk and Ramaswami presented ‘deregulation, administrative reduction, and cost reduction’ as the three key reform keywords for the Ministry of Government Efficiency. First, he explained that he would eliminate various federal regulations that had been abused through presidential executive orders and thereby significantly reduce the number of public officials in charge of these duties. They announced that they would identify the minimum number of civil servants needed for each agency and encourage voluntary resignation of civil servants by mandating attendance at the office five days a week. “If you force federal employees to come to the office five days a week, many of them will voluntarily quit, and we welcome that,” Musk said. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 1.3 million federal employees are currently authorized to work remotely, but they spend only 60% of their time in the office.
There are predictions that if such a measure becomes a reality, friction with the federal public employee union will be inevitable. Bloomberg News and other sources predicted that if the White House enforced the suspension of telecommuting, it could clash with the federal public employee union. Regarding the possibility of opposition from the federal civil servant union, they argued that dismissal of federal civil servants as political retaliation is prohibited and that workforce reductions that do not target specific employees are permitted. He added that the U.S. president has the authority to conduct large-scale layoffs and relocate federal agencies outside the capital. A conciliation measure was also presented. He said he would help public servants who no longer have positions move to the private sector, and explained that the president could provide incentives or voluntary retirement allowances to early retirees based on existing laws.
Previously, Musk had shown a negative stance on working from home even when running his own company. In his first group e-mail to employees after acquiring Twitter in 2022, Musk declared a ban on working from home and also asked Tesla executives to come to the office.
The Ministry of Government Efficiency also plans to control federal spending. In relation to this, it is said that the annual budget used without permission from Congress or for purposes not intended by Congress exceeds $500 billion (approximately 699 trillion won), including $535 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) budget and $1.5 billion from international organization support. It was argued that subsidies to progressive organizations, including $300 million, could be cut.
“Our overriding goal is to eliminate the need for the Department of Government Efficiency by July 4, 2026, our target date for completion of the project,” said Musk and Ramaswamy. “I will give it to you as a gift,” he emphasized.
**To what extent does the proposed reform plan by the DOGE reflect a “New Public Management” approach, and what are the potential benefits and drawbacks of this approach in the context of this specific scenario?**
## World Today News Interview: Reimagining the Federal Government
**Guests:**
* **Dr. Emily Carter:** Public Policy Professor, specializing in government reform and bureaucratic efficiency.
* **Mr. James Peterson:** Former Federal Employee Union Representative, advocate for worker rights and fair labor practices.
**Host:** Welcome to World Today News. Today, we’re discussing the bold proposal by the newly appointed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to overhaul the federal government. Joining us are Dr. Emily Carter, an expert in government reform, and Mr. James Peterson, formerly representing federal employees. Let’s delve into this controversial plan.
**Part 1: The Rationale for Reform**
**Host:** Dr. Carter, the DOGE argues that the federal government has become bloated and inefficient, with unelected officials wielding excessive power. Do you find this assessment accurate?
**Dr. Carter:** Well, the size and scope of the federal government have certainly grown over time. There’s no doubt that bureaucracy can be cumbersome and prone to inefficiencies. However, it’s important to remember that regulations and government agencies are put in place to protect citizens, ensure fair markets, and provide vital services.
**Host:** Mr. Peterson, what’s your reaction to the DOGE’s claim that entrenched bureaucracy is an “existential threat” to the United States?
**Mr. Peterson:** I think characterizing dedicated public servants as a threat is deeply concerning. Federal employees play a crucial role in our society, from ensuring national security to delivering social security benefits. Their contributions should be valued, not demonized.
**Part 2: Proposed Strategies for Reform**
**Host:** The DOGE proposes several strategies for reform, including eliminating telecommuting to encourage resignations, reducing the federal workforce through attrition, and relocating agencies outside the capital. Dr. Carter, how effective do you believe these measures would be in achieving their stated goals?
**Dr. Carter:** There’s potentially some merit to streamlining processes and reassessing workforce needs. However, simply forcing employees back to the office or relocating agencies without careful planning and consideration could lead to significant disruptions and job losses, possibly harming the very services the government is meant to provide.
**Host:** Mr. Peterson, how might these proposed changes impact federal employees and their families?
**Mr. Peterson:** These measures could be devastating. Forcing people back to the office five days a week after adjusting to telecommuting arrangements would disrupt family lives and childcare, particularly for those in rural areas. Relocation could uproot families and displace experienced employees, ultimately weakening the government’s ability to function effectively.
**Part 3: Balancing Efficiency and Worker Rights**
**Host:** The DOGE argues they are simply applying business principles to government, while acknowledging their obligation to comply with labor laws. How do you balance the goal of efficiency with the rights of federal workers, Mr. Peterson?
**Mr. Peterson:**
Efficiency shouldn’t come at the cost of worker dignity and security. Laying off dedicated public servants based on ideological preferences rather than genuine performance issues is ethically problematic. Furthermore, the government has a responsibility to negotiate with unions and ensure that any changes are fair and transparent.
**Host:** Dr. Carter, do you see any potential for consensus or compromise between the DOGE’s ambitions and the concerns of federal employees?
**Dr. Carter:** It’s essential for both sides to engage in good-faith dialogue, recognizing the legitimate concerns of each other. Ultimately, successful government reform requires a balanced approach that prioritizes both effectiveness and the well-being of its workforce.
**Part 4: Looking Ahead**
**Host:** The DOGE set an ambitious target of July 4, 2026, to eliminate the need for itself. Is this a realistic goal, Dr. Carter?
**Dr. Carter:** Achieving such a radical transformation in such a short timeframe is highly ambitious, perhaps even unrealistic. Real, sustainable reform takes time, careful planning, and a willingness to adapt based on real-world results and feedback.
**Host:** What message would you like to leave our viewers with regarding the future of the federal government, Mr. Peterson?
**Mr. Peterson:** I urge our government leaders to prioritize the well-being of all Americans, including their dedicated public servants. We need reforms that are both effective and equitable, ensuring a government that serves the needs of all its people.
**Host:** Thank you both for sharing your valuable insights. This is a complex and ongoing debate, and we encourage our viewers to stay informed and engaged in this critical conversation.
