mytest
Books, eBooks, and more from Debito Arudou, Ph.D. (click on icon):
UPDATES ON TWITTER: arudoudebito
DEBITO.ORG PODCASTS on iTunes, subscribe free
“LIKE” US on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/debitoorg
https://www.facebook.com/embeddedrcsmJapan
http://www.facebook.com/handbookimmigrants
https://www.facebook.com/JapaneseOnlyTheBook
https://www.facebook.com/BookInAppropriate
If you like what you read and discuss on Debito.org, please consider helping us stop hackers and defray maintenance costs with a little donation via my webhoster:
All donations go towards website costs only. Thanks for your support!
Hi Blog. Right after the Upper House Elections on July 24, I usually like to give my opinion about the results. I do have an opinion (which is, in short: I think the fears of a xenophobic surge are overblown, since for decades ALL of these slogans have been said by people both on campaigns and after being elected), but I’m going to flesh it out more in my next SNA column. This one I’ve been working on for months with a civil servant in the US Government in the era of DOGE. Have a read. Debito Arudou, Ph.D.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
VIEWING TRUMP’S “DOGE REFORMS” FROM THE INSIDE
SNA interviews a federal government employee on the front lines
By Debito Arudou. Shingetsu News Agency, Visible Minorities column 68, July 24, 2025
Courtesy https://shingetsunewsagency.com/2025/07/24/visible-minorities-viewing-doge-from-the-inside/
Intro: President Trump has been on a mission of sorts to reform the Executive Branch of the American Federal Government. To do so, for a while he appointed billionaire CEO Elon Musk and a number of shady computer experts to fire as many civil servants as possible under a pseudo-department called DOGE, for “Department of Government Efficiency“. SNA talked with one civil servant, whom we will call “Sam” (a pseudonym) via email to get an insider’s perspective on what’s going on. Due to the difficulties of finding time to talk in a turbulent time, this interview took place piecemeal over the past few months.
SNA: First, tell us more about yourself, as much as you can without revealing yourself.
SAM: I’ve been with the federal government for nearly two decades and have stayed with the same agency and program all those years. I’m a subject matter expert or program specialist but not a manager or director. My area of expertise is on social services with a focus on program coordination and implementation.
SNA: How is your department dealing with all this chaos?
SAM: We have lost many of our staff through RIFs and early retirements. The RIFs are still going through legal appeal, and recently the Supreme Court condoned the administration proceeding with massive layoffs. The RIF’s targeted agency support functions such as data, legal, contracts, HR and operations.
SNA: Sorry, what are “RIFs?”
SAM: RIFs are “reductions in force.” There are regulations that the Federal government must follow to implement one. Typically, when planning a RIF, they look at seniority, performance and job code or skills. None of those were considered in the RIF earlier this year. It was done by organization code for the most part.
SNA: It’s interesting that there is in fact a system in place for getting rid of public-sector workers. Our image is that bureaucrats have secure jobs for life and are basically unfireable. Please tell us a bit more about the RIF system that should have been implemented in order to downsize, and how it was actually done by DOGE. I take it DOGE didn’t do things by the book.
SAM: As I mentioned, a list of those to be RIFfed that includes details about their seniority and performance needs to be developed because those people would have priority in new Federal hiring. I believe that the administration should also notify the union for bargaining unit eligible employees for a 30-day review period and then a 60-day advanced notice in writing for all employees to be RIFfed, after which their “admin leave” pay stops, and their severance pay starts based on their years of service. I’ve heard that many agencies did not do this consistently for all RIFfed employees and that ultimately different people had different RIF dates.
SNA: Now that all the regular procedures are bypassed, are you hopeful the US Judiciary will hold DOGE in check?
SAM: I’d like to maintain a glimmer of hope due to the Federal court injunction which made it through an appeals court and to the Supreme Court, that the union and other stakeholder plaintiffs will prevail in their lawsuit. Apparently the actions of DOGE don’t comply with the Administrative Procedures Act. I’m not sure if that matters. Given the Supreme Court’s latest decision to disallow Federal judges to put a stay on some agency RIFs that are being contested in Federal court, it seems like the administration will proceed with more large-scale layoffs in many agencies.
SNA: The actions with RIFs notwithstanding, have you seen anything blatantly illegal happening on the part of DOGE?
SAM: I’ve literally not seen anything besides the RIFs and putting staff on indefinite administrative leave for past activities pertaining to diversity, equity and inclusion, even if they were minor voluntary duties and they are not doing them now, I don’t have a good sense of what they’re doing day-to-day. I know they’re canceling and descoping contracts.
SNA: Sorry, another ask for clarification. “Descoping?”
SAM: Many agencies award contracts for technical assistance and evaluation from pooled evaluation funds or program national activity funds in lieu of hiring more staff to work in these areas. Descoping means that the tasks and quantity of deliverables are being removed from current and future contracts. Staff are asked to ensure that only tasks that are in statute or are mission critical be in contracts. But statutory language is usually vague about these activities other than authorizing an agency to carry them out and contract for them. Without guidelines, staff are reducing contract amounts by more than 10%, up to perhaps 50%, but still thinking that’s better than losing the contract entirely because they lack any staff who can pick up that work in-house.
SNA: How are you viewing the arguments that these are “cost-cutting, efficiency-promoting” measures on the part of DOGE?
SAM: I think many of us have observed inefficiencies in processes and procedures and staffing across our larger offices or agencies. It would have been more productive to have a discussion with career managers and regular staff to understand that better. As for “government inefficiency,” decisions can be inexplicably slow in being made or even in staff from one office getting a response from another office. While not quite the 20-80 rule since everyone has particularly busy times of the year, and as with any large agency or organization, there’s no question that some people do more than their share of the work and others do not, with an understandable exception for new employees learning the ropes and moving up the GS grades as they do. Government decisions can have widespread impacts on many people, so decision-makers want to avoid mistakes and are probably extra-cautious. On the other hand, there are people willing to stick their necks out and take risks and do more than they have to in order to help more people. it’s been thrilling to work with people who work very hard, some of whom may also be political appointees. So much can be and has been accomplished.
SNA: Sorry, no doubt you’re using work jargon so familiar that one forgets they’re not in common parlance. For our readers, what’s the 20-80 rule?
SAM: There’s an old adage that 20% of the staff do 80% of the work. That’s harsh and I don’t think the ratio is that extreme, but there’s probably some truth to it in any large organization. In government there is also a stronger bottleneck in clearing everything that will be publicly disseminated through many levels of career and political management to avoid mistakes or criticism that can take attention away from what an initiative is trying to accomplish.
SNA: Thanks. When you say, “So much can get accomplished,” here’s a good chance for you to tout an accomplishment. Can you point to one without giving up who you are and where you work?
SAM: We have gotten out years of files of privacy protected data down to the local level as the number and kind of people served by our program vary a lot locally and by year and so do outcomes for them. Other agencies award their grants serving similar populations locally and some national organizations have been able to analyze our data in ways we and our contractors have not had the capacity to do.
SNA: Alright, let’s deal with the main argument head-on. Your adversaries see you as part of the “deep state.” Put charitably, they claim you bureaucrats thwart any real reforms because you’re inherently politicized, or, as per Milton Friedman, you’re a problem just because you exist. There are plenty of people who also see government and its growth as naturally inefficient, because you’re spending other people’s money so you have no incentive to be efficient. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, you’re not the solution to a problem but “the problem” itself. Some people don’t trust bureaucracies under any circumstances. What would you say to them?
SAM: It’s probably the case that people who are hired in to work on a program want to support it and improve it, and have gotten to hear many stories of people who have benefited from the program services and the people who advocate for them. However, when it comes to process or procedure, there’s a focus on consistency and fairness, treating everyone equally and advantaging no one. Different than elected politicians, I think most career civil servants pride themselves on their professionalism in doing so. Some politicians or political appointees may feel thwarted by this, and the public or grantees may be frustrated by the slowness or opaqueness of some advice or actions. However, a lot of effort is put into restraining Federal “overreach” on states and a lot of national programs are rather leanly staffed with a ratio of thousands of grantees and even hundreds of thousands of grant beneficiaries per hired civil servant. Even with dedicated administrators, it’s hard to get the balance of capacity right, and work can fluctuate due to funding and policy changes by Congress and the administration. While people interested in public service probably are motivated to help other people and may have progressive leanings, the “deep state” is overhyped. If only we could coordinate across programs and agencies that easily and effectively!
SNA: Are you seeing any resistance to DOGE etc. within your organizations anywhere?
SAM: Definitely through the union and on social media with former and current colleagues. Our union local is party to the lawsuit on the RIFs and other administrative actions. There is a Federal Unionists Network, but it seems to be very grassroots and kind of a “train the trainer” approach to those who wish to organize their colleagues. I’m a member of and support our local branch union of AFGE.
SNA: Do you think a union is actually going to make a difference? A lot of Americans don’t put much faith in unions because — vicious circle — they don’t see unions as effectual, so they don’t join them. In my union, there’s always some naysayer out there contacting us offlist claiming that unions are just a parasite on our paycheck, and we should not pay dues and just freeload instead. I’m not listening to that bunkum, but the culture of working class solidarity is shaky in the United States after more than a century of anti-Socialism. What’s the attitude in your circles?
SAM: I think the union has been useful as a source of information and collective direction. They get out good communications during chaotic times and also have networked with the national union and other unions to oppose the RIFs. I would say that the culture of solidarity is shaky as many don’t have active union membership or union leadership experience. Our union has had some ups and downs over the years, and people are divided by office or program, professional background, grade and range of experience. Nonetheless we have some leaders and active members.
SNA: Alright, let’s shift gears to a burning question I’ve had. One thing I’ve never quite understood is that some civil servants, including the Librarian of Congress, were sent termination notices via basic email, not even in writing on letterhead or in person from somebody higher up. I would have just ignored it as spam and kept working. Why don’t people just resist by showing up to work regardless? I’m sure this is a misperception on my part, but why do they seem to be going so quietly?
SAM: Going against Executive Branch leadership is not that easy. In my agency and others, staff who were RIFfed got locked out of their government-furnished computers that need special ID cards to access. They were also restricted from any internal systems even when they had a couple weeks to wrap up their work. After then, they could not enter the building without being escorted by a security guard. I did read about the person at USDA who refused her RIF, came to work and was allowed to work for a while at least. I wonder why unions, RIFfed staff and their surviving colleagues aren’t having more protests outside agencies.
SNA: So much for the “deep state,” then. Many people have just resigned out of protest. Why haven’t you? What would be the threshold where you would?
SAM: I’m not fully eligible for retirement and there aren’t many equivalent jobs that are hiring. I love working on my program and don’t want to stop working on it. It would be better to be RIFfed, get severance pay and have priority for hiring if/when the Federal government is rehiring.
SNA: I see. Finally, do you see any light on the horizon?
SAM: I do see the “shock and awe” of the first 100 days or even the first six months, for that matter, slowing down. I’m not sure how supportive Congress will be of the administration, but it’s been surprising how much they and the Supreme Court have allowed the administration to do. So it depends on us voters and other forms of political and social action. I’m heartened by the primary results in some states and localities. I wonder if or when the pendulum will be swinging. Maybe it will take a few more botched responses to natural disasters or on some key domestic or foreign policy decisions.
SNA: Perhaps. Then again, the SCOTUS Roberts’ Court edict of July 14, which “temporarily” decreed from its emergency docket that layoffs may continue for now at the Department of Education—without offering any reasoning—is not a good bellwether. Thank you very much for your time and for sharing your experiences.
ENDS
======================
Do you like what you read on Debito.org? Want to help keep the archive active and support Debito.org’s activities? Please consider donating a little something. More details here. Or if you prefer something less complicated, just click on an advertisement below.