{"id":17585,"date":"2025-07-24T13:32:08","date_gmt":"2025-07-24T20:32:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/?p=17585"},"modified":"2025-07-24T13:32:22","modified_gmt":"2025-07-24T20:32:22","slug":"my-sna-visible-minorities-68-viewing-trumps-doge-reforms-from-the-inside-where-i-interview-a-civil-servant-in-the-us-government-on-how-the-bureaucrat-purge-is-affecting-them-july-21-202","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/?p=17585","title":{"rendered":"My SNA Visible Minorities 68: “Viewing Trump’s ‘DOGE reforms’ from the inside”, where I interview a civil servant in the US Government on how the bureaucrat purge is affecting them (July 21, 2025)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Books, eBooks, and more from Debito Arudou, Ph.D. (click on icon):
\n\"Guidebookcover.jpg\"<\/a>\"japaneseonlyebookcovertext\"<\/a>\"Handbook<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\u300c\u30b8\u30e3\u30d1\u30cb\u30fc\u30ba\u30fb\u30aa\u30f3\u30ea\u30fc\u3000\u5c0f\u6a3d\u5165\u6d74\u62d2\u5426\u554f\u984c\u3068\u4eba\u7a2e\u5dee\u5225\u300d\uff08\u660e\u77f3\u66f8\u5e97\uff09\"<\/a>\"sourstrawberriesavatar\"<\/a>\"debitopodcastthumb\"<\/a>\"FodorsJapan2014cover\"<\/a>
\nUPDATES ON TWITTER: arudoudebito
\nDEBITO.ORG PODCASTS on iTunes, subscribe free
\n“LIKE” US on Facebook at http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/debitoorg<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.facebook.com\/embeddedrcsmJapan<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/www.facebook.com\/handbookimmigrants<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.facebook.com\/JapaneseOnlyTheBook<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.facebook.com\/BookInAppropriate<\/a>
\nIf 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:
\n\"Donate<\/a>
\nAll donations go towards website costs only. Thanks for your support!<\/i><\/p>\n

Hi Blog. \u00a0Right after the Upper House Elections on July 24, I usually like to give my opinion about the results. \u00a0I do have an opinion (which is, in short: \u00a0I 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. \u00a0This one I’ve been working on for months with a civil servant in the US Government in the era of DOGE. \u00a0Have a read. \u00a0Debito Arudou, Ph.D.<\/p>\n

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/<\/p>\n

VIEWING TRUMP\u2019S \u201cDOGE REFORMS\u201d FROM THE INSIDE<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

SNA interviews a federal government employee on the front lines<\/h3>\n

By Debito Arudou. \u00a0Shingetsu News Agency, Visible Minorities column 68, July 24, 2025<\/h4>\n

Courtesy https:\/\/shingetsunewsagency.com\/2025\/07\/24\/visible-minorities-viewing-doge-from-the-inside\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Intro: \u00a0President Trump has been on a mission of sorts to reform the Executive Branch of the American Federal Government. \u00a0To 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<\/a>“. \u00a0SNA talked with one civil servant, whom we will call \u201cSam\u201d (a pseudonym) via email to get an insider\u2019s perspective on what\u2019s going on.\u00a0 Due to the difficulties of finding time to talk in a turbulent time, this interview took place piecemeal over the past few months.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0First, tell us more about yourself, as much as you can without revealing yourself.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM: \u00a0I’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.\u00a0My area of expertise is on social services with a focus on program coordination and implementation.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0How is your department dealing with all this chaos?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0Sorry, what are \u201cRIFs?”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM: \u00a0RIFs are \u201creductions in force.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0It\u2019s interesting that there is in fact a system in place for getting rid of public-sector workers. \u00a0Our image is that bureaucrats have secure jobs for life and are basically unfireable. \u00a0Please 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. \u00a0I take it DOGE didn\u2019t do things by the book.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM:\u00a0 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 \u201cadmin leave\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

SNA:\u00a0\u00a0 Now that all the regular procedures are bypassed, are you hopeful the US Judiciary will hold DOGE in check?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM:\u00a0 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\u2019m 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.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0The actions with RIFs notwithstanding, have you seen anything blatantly illegal happening on the part of DOGE?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM: \u00a0I’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.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0Sorry, another ask for clarification. \u00a0\u201cDescoping?\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM:\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0How are you viewing the arguments that these are \u201ccost-cutting, efficiency-promoting\u201d measures on the part of DOGE?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM: \u00a0I 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 \u201cgovernment inefficiency,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0Sorry, no doubt you\u2019re using work jargon so familiar that one forgets they\u2019re not in common parlance. \u00a0For our readers, what\u2019s the 20-80 rule?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM:\u00a0 There’s an old adage that 20% of the staff do 80% of the work. That’s harsh and I don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n

SNA:\u00a0 Thanks.\u00a0 When you say, \u201cSo much can get accomplished,\u201d here\u2019s a good chance for you to tout an accomplishment.\u00a0 Can you point to one without giving up who you are and where you work?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM:\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

SNA:\u00a0\u00a0Alright, let\u2019s deal with the main argument head-on. \u00a0Your adversaries see you as part of the \u201cdeep state.\u201d \u00a0Put charitably, they claim you bureaucrats thwart any real reforms because you\u2019re inherently politicized, or, as per Milton Friedman, you\u2019re a problem just because you exist. \u00a0There are plenty of people who also see government and its growth as naturally inefficient, because you\u2019re spending other people\u2019s money so you have no incentive to be efficient.\u00a0 To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, you\u2019re not the solution to a problem but \u201cthe problem\u201d itself. \u00a0Some people don\u2019t trust bureaucracies under any circumstances. \u00a0What would you say to them?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM:\u00a0 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 \u201cdeep state\u201d is overhyped. If only we could coordinate across programs and agencies that easily and effectively!<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0Are you seeing any resistance to DOGE etc. within your organizations anywhere? \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

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 \u201ctrain the trainer\u201d approach to those who wish to organize their colleagues. I’m a member of and support our local branch union of AFGE.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0Do you think a union is actually going to make a difference? \u00a0A lot of Americans don\u2019t put much faith in unions because \u2014 vicious circle \u2014 they don\u2019t see unions as effectual, so they don\u2019t join them. \u00a0In my union, there\u2019s 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. \u00a0I\u2019m 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. \u00a0What\u2019s the attitude in your circles?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM: \u00a0I 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0Alright, let\u2019s shift gears to a burning question I\u2019ve had.\u00a0 One thing I\u2019ve 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. \u00a0I would have just ignored it as spam and kept working. \u00a0Why don\u2019t people just resist by showing up to work regardless? \u00a0I\u2019m sure this is a misperception on my part, but why do they seem to be going so quietly?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM:\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0So much for the \u201cdeep state,\u201d then.\u00a0 Many people have just resigned out of protest. \u00a0Why haven\u2019t you? \u00a0What would be the threshold where you would?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0I see. \u00a0Finally, do you see any light on the horizon?\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

SAM: \u00a0I 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.\u00a0 Maybe it will take a few more botched responses to natural disasters or on some key domestic or foreign policy decisions.<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0Perhaps.\u00a0 Then again, the <\/em><\/strong>SCOTUS Roberts\u2019 Court edict<\/em><\/strong><\/a> of July 14, which \u201ctemporarily\u201d decreed from its emergency docket that layoffs may continue for now at the Department of Education\u2014without offering any reasoning\u2014is not a good bellwether.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 Thank you very much for your time and for sharing your experiences.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

ENDS<\/p>\n

======================
\nDo you like what you read on Debito.org? \u00a0Want to help keep the archive active and support Debito.org’s activities? \u00a0Please consider donating a little something. \u00a0More details here<\/a>. Or if you prefer something less complicated, just click on an advertisement below.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Intro: President Trump has been on a mission of sorts to reform the Executive Branch of the American Federal Government. \u00a0To 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”. \u00a0SNA talked with one civil servant, whom we will call \u201cSam\u201d (a pseudonym) via email to get an insider\u2019s perspective on what\u2019s going on.\u00a0 Due to the difficulties of finding time to talk in a turbulent time, this interview took place piecemeal over the past few months. […]<\/p>\n

SNA:\u00a0\u00a0Alright, let\u2019s deal with the main argument head-on. \u00a0Your adversaries see you as part of the \u201cdeep state.\u201d \u00a0Put charitably, they claim you bureaucrats thwart any real reforms because you\u2019re inherently politicized, or, as per Milton Friedman, you\u2019re a problem just because you exist. \u00a0There are plenty of people who also see government and its growth as naturally inefficient, because you\u2019re spending other people\u2019s money so you have no incentive to be efficient.\u00a0 To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, you\u2019re not the solution to a problem but \u201cthe problem\u201d itself. \u00a0Some people don\u2019t trust bureaucracies under any circumstances. \u00a0What would you say to them?<\/p>\n

SAM:\u00a0 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 \u201cdeep state\u201d is overhyped. If only we could coordinate across programs and agencies that easily and effectively! […]<\/p>\n

SNA: \u00a0How are you viewing the arguments that these are \u201ccost-cutting, efficiency-promoting\u201d measures on the part of DOGE?<\/p>\n

SAM: \u00a0I 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 \u201cgovernment inefficiency,\u201d 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54,18,36,22,16,31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pinprick-protests","category-academia","category-bad-social-science","category-cultural-issue","category-labor-issues","category-tangents"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17585","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17585"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17585\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17587,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17585\/revisions\/17587"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}