Improving Upon DOGE and Grace Commission Efforts in Reducing Government Spending

Introduction
The pursuit of greater efficiency in U.S. government operations has a long history, from President Reagan’s 1982 Grace Commission to the contemporary “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) initiative launched in 2025. The Grace Commission – officially the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control – was a bold attempt to identify wasteful spending and improve management, albeit with mixed results (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY) (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). Similarly, DOGE was established with ambitious cost-cutting goals, including a publicly stated target of reducing federal outlays by “at least $2 trillion” (Explainer: How Musk's US government efficiency panel might work | Reuters) (Explainer: How Musk's US government efficiency panel might work | Reuters). DOGE’s approach, driven by the executive branch (and associated with figures like Elon Musk), has drawn both support and controversy. This paper examines how DOGE, had it incorporated elements of the Grace Commission but operated under today’s accepted government protocols, could have achieved more success. Key oversight mechanisms – including congressional committees (e.g. the House Oversight and Accountability Committee and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee), as well as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) – are analyzed as critical stakeholders. A balanced view is presented, weighing the pros and cons of integrating these stakeholders and protocols into an efficiency initiative. The analysis is moderately analytical in tone, aiming to inform academic and professional audiences.

Historical Context: The Grace Commission and Efficiency Initiatives
President Ronald Reagan’s Grace Commission (1982–1984) provides a foundational context for understanding modern efficiency drives. Chaired by businessman J. Peter Grace, the commission mobilized 161 corporate executives and about 2,000 private sector volunteers to scrutinize federal agencies (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY) (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). In January 1984, it delivered 2,478 recommendations, claiming potential savings of $424 billion over three years (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). The Grace Commission identified egregious examples of waste (famously, $436 hammers and $511 light bulbs in defense procurement) alongside systemic inefficiencies, such as outdated financial practices and overly generous federal pension schemes (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY) (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). However, turning recommendations into reality proved difficult. A joint review by GAO and the Congressional Budget Office found the Commission had overestimated savings, with real savings likely only one-third of projections (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). Moreover, most of the major savings required legislative action, not just executive tweaks. In fact, only 27% of Grace Commission proposals could be implemented unilaterally by the President, while the remaining 73% needed Congress to change laws or policies (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). This reliance on Congress became a roadblock: many high-impact ideas (e.g. altering Medicare and federal pension formulas) were politically unpalatable in a divided government and thus “never implemented” (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). Congress did adopt a few lower-profile reforms (such as closing redundant military bases and transferring some federal services to local control) (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY), but the bulk of recommendations languished. The Grace Commission’s legacy, nonetheless, was significant in shaping future debates on government waste – it sparked the creation of advocacy groups like Citizens Against Government Waste and underscored the importance of involving both executive and legislative branches for lasting reforms (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY).

Lessons from the Grace Commission era highlight that purely private-sector-driven reviews face institutional and political constraints. The Commission operated outside normal bureaucratic protocols – it was privately funded and staffed, arguably sidestepping some federal advisory rules of its time. While this allowed “tireless bloodhounds” to hunt for inefficiency (as Reagan urged) (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY), it also raised concerns about conflicts of interest and the applicability of business tactics to public services (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY) (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). Modern protocols have since evolved to address such issues (e.g. laws to ensure advisory committee transparency and ethics). These historical insights set the stage for analyzing DOGE under today’s standards of governance.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in 2025
The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, emerged in early 2025 as an aggressive initiative to streamline federal spending and bureaucracy. Created via executive order in the aftermath of the 2024 election, DOGE was tasked by President Donald J. Trump with a “government-wide audit to eliminate Washington waste” (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability). Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk was closely associated with DOGE’s leadership, bringing a Silicon Valley disruptor mentality to Washington. The initiative’s mandate echoed the Grace Commission’s spirit – cutting waste, fraud, and abuse – but DOGE’s execution was more direct and operational. Rather than merely advising, DOGE teams were embedded in agencies to scrutinize and even halt spending. For example, a White House directive required each agency to “record every payment… along with a brief justification” and empowered agency heads to pause payments lacking justification (Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Cost Efficiency Initiative – The White House) (Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Cost Efficiency Initiative – The White House). Within 30 days of launch, agencies were instructed to review all contracts and grants, terminating or renegotiating those deemed wasteful, with an explicit focus on areas like academic and foreign grants (Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Cost Efficiency Initiative – The White House). Additional measures froze new contract hires and required justifications for any “non-essential” travel on the taxpayer’s dime (Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Cost Efficiency Initiative – The White House). In effect, DOGE sought rapid, tangible cuts in expenditure by imposing stringent internal controls and questioning the status quo of agency budgets.

Initial outcomes of DOGE were mixed and controversial. Supporters praised the initiative’s boldness and alignment with fiscal responsibility, arguing that Americans are “tired of… tax dollars wasted” and that DOGE was finally delivering results long recommended by watchdogs (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability) (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability). Indeed, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer lauded that GAO’s prior findings on improper payments and inefficiencies gave DOGE a “strong starting point” to tackle problems like Medicaid payment errors and antiquated IT systems (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability). Some early reports claimed significant savings – DOGE publicly boasted of billions saved by renegotiating contracts and cutting perceived waste (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia). Critics, however, pointed out serious drawbacks. Career civil servants and federal employee groups objected to DOGE’s methods, citing hasty layoffs and loss of expertise that could degrade services. Notably, the U.S. Digital Service saw staff resignations in protest of DOGE’s interference (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia) (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia). There were also public demonstrations against what some labeled a “coup d’etat” by unelected figures (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia). Legal and ethical challenges quickly arose: observers questioned whether Musk and his team had official authority or were skirting the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s transparency rules (Explainer: How Musk's US government efficiency panel might work | Reuters). Some members of Congress (on the other side of the aisle) even deemed aspects of DOGE “unconstitutional and illegal,” especially if DOGE attempted to impound or redirect funds already appropriated by Congress (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia). By early 2025, media investigations found that DOGE’s “only public ledger” of savings was riddled with mistakes, casting doubt on the accuracy of its efficiency claims (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia). This polarized reception of DOGE underscores a key point: the initiative’s success or failure is tightly linked to how well it meshes with accepted governance protocols and oversight.

Modern Oversight Protocols and Key Stakeholders
Under currently accepted government protocols, any sweeping efficiency campaign would engage a network of oversight entities and established processes. The major stakeholders include Congress (particularly oversight committees in the House and Senate), executive management bodies like OMB, independent auditors such as GAO, and other oversight institutions (e.g. agency Inspectors General). Each plays a distinct role in ensuring accountability, legality, and effectiveness:

• Congressional Oversight Committees: The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) are the primary congressional bodies overseeing federal management and operations. These committees have jurisdiction to investigate agency performance, hold hearings, and draft legislation to address inefficiencies. In the case of DOGE, the House Oversight Committee quickly involved itself by aligning DOGE’s mission with its own oversight agenda. In a February 2025 hearing, House members emphasized that GAO’s High Risk List (a biennial list of vulnerable programs) should guide DOGE’s priorities (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability) (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability). By doing so, Congress signaled an expectation that DOGE work within a framework of congressional priorities rather than unilaterally. HSGAC similarly would be a forum for scrutiny; for instance, HSGAC could review whether DOGE’s actions respect civil service laws and national security considerations. Notably, a Delivering Government Efficiency caucus formed in Congress to support DOGE’s goals, chaired by partisan allies, but bipartisan interest waned when members felt excluded from decision-making (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia). Modern protocol would instead encourage bipartisan, transparent collaboration with these committees to ensure broad buy-in for efficiency measures.

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB): As the administrative nerve center of the executive branch, OMB oversees budget development, performance metrics, and regulatory policy across agencies. Contemporary practice would have OMB play a coordinating role in any efficiency drive. OMB can ensure that cost-cutting efforts align with the President’s budget submissions to Congress and do not inadvertently conflict with other policy objectives. In 2017, for example, President Trump signed an executive order tasking OMB with developing agency reorganization plans and establishing “regulatory reform task forces” in each agency (Explainer: How Musk's US government efficiency panel might work | Reuters). While that early initiative had limited success (numerous proposed agency eliminations were not enacted by Congress) (Explainer: How Musk's US government efficiency panel might work | Reuters), it set a precedent for using OMB’s formal processes to analyze redundancies. In a modern DOGE scenario, OMB’s involvement would mean using tools like strategic reviews, program evaluations, and the budget review process to vet DOGE proposals. OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs could review any regulatory changes needed to implement efficiencies, and its financial management offices could validate savings calculations. Essentially, OMB would act as a reality check and project manager, helping DOGE distinguish one-time cuts from sustainable efficiencies and ensuring compliance with laws like the Impoundment Control Act (which prohibits unapproved withholding of funds).

• Government Accountability Office (GAO): GAO, often called “Congress’s watchdog,” is an independent, non-partisan agency that audits federal programs and recommends improvements. Engaging GAO is crucial under modern protocols; GAO provides evidence-based findings on where waste or overlap exists. Indeed, GAO’s High Risk List (published at the start of each Congress) identifies dozens of troubled areas (from Defense contract management to Medicare payment integrity) that are “ripe for congressional oversight and action” (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability). GAO has documented that addressing its recommendations has saved the government hundreds of billions of dollars over time (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability). By tapping into GAO’s analyses, DOGE could target known problem areas with credible data backing its efforts. For example, GAO has long highlighted improper payments in programs like Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance, which collectively amounted to “trillions of dollars lost” over the years (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability). A modern DOGE working in tandem with GAO would prioritize fixing the root causes of such losses – e.g. by updating payment systems or tightening eligibility verification – thereby achieving savings that GAO would likely validate. GAO’s involvement also brings accountability: if DOGE claims savings, GAO can audit and confirm (or refute) those claims, preventing overstatement. This independent verification builds trust with Congress and the public.

• Other Stakeholders (OMB’s sister agencies, IGs, and Workforce): In addition to OMB and GAO, modern protocols involve a broader ecosystem. Agency-specific Inspectors General (independent internal watchdogs) routinely identify waste and fraud in programs; a collaborative DOGE would work with IGs rather than bypass them. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and federal employee unions are also stakeholders, as efficiency initiatives often involve workforce changes. Early consultation with these groups can help implement changes (like reassignments or process streamlining) in compliance with civil service rules and without crippling morale. Furthermore, federal advisory bodies must operate under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 if they involve non-government experts. FACA ensures advisory panels are “objective and open to the public,” with proper record-keeping (Explainer: How Musk's US government efficiency panel might work | Reuters). A Musk-led efficiency panel would ordinarily be expected to follow FACA – announcing meetings, sharing minutes, and disclosing any costs or conflicts – unless formally exempted. Modern best practices also emphasize data transparency: initiatives might publish dashboards of progress or open data on spending (building on laws like the DATA Act of 2014 that standardized federal spending data). All these protocols are designed to integrate oversight, expertise, and accountability into any major government reform effort.

Pros of Integrating Stakeholders and Protocols
Aligning DOGE with the above modern oversight mechanisms would offer several advantages for its success and legitimacy:

• Enhanced Legitimacy and Bipartisan Support: By working through congressional committees, DOGE would gain legitimacy as a government-wide effort endorsed by elected representatives, not just a top-down mandate. Early briefings or joint working groups with the House Oversight and Senate HSGAC committees could cultivate bipartisan buy-in. Such support is crucial for implementing changes that require legislation or enduring funding adjustments. The Grace Commission’s fate illustrated this – only the recommendations palatable to Congress survived (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). Integrating Congress from the start could help DOGE avoid that implementation gap.

• Legal and Ethical Compliance: Involving OMB and adhering to laws like FACA would keep DOGE within the bounds of accepted procedure, insulating it from legal challenges. Open meetings and disclosures under FACA, for instance, would counter allegations that DOGE is an “unaccountable” or secretive coup within the government (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia). Compliance with the Impoundment Control Act via OMB’s oversight would prevent unconstitutional withholding of funds (a concern raised by some lawmakers (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia)). Overall, respecting these protocols reduces the risk of court injunctions or public distrust due to opaque methods.

• Expertise and Data-Driven Targeting: GAO and agency IGs provide a treasure trove of audits and recommendations – essentially a roadmap of where inefficiencies lie. Using GAO’s High Risk List and reports means DOGE would target issues with well-documented savings potential (e.g., Medicare billing errors, procurement duplication). This data-driven approach increases the likelihood of real, verifiable savings. House Oversight leaders noted that GAO’s work gave DOGE a “strong starting point” and highlighted areas costing billions annually (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability). By focusing on such areas, DOGE could achieve measurable successes (for example, reducing improper payments by even 10% could save tens of billions, which GAO could then certify as achieved).

• Improved Accuracy and Accountability: Integrating independent oversight would force DOGE to substantiate its results. Any savings claimed would be scrutinized by GAO or OMB analysts, greatly reducing “multi-billion-dollar mistakes” in accounting (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia). This rigor ensures that reported gains (e.g. budget reductions or efficiencies) are real and not simply cost-shifting or optimistic projections. Accountability partners would also monitor for unintended consequences, such as degraded services or security risks, allowing for mid-course corrections. In essence, transparency through oversight creates a feedback loop to keep the efficiency drive on track.

• Sustainable Reforms: Changes implemented with stakeholder input are more likely to endure. If DOGE collaborates with career officials and aligns with the President’s formal budget process, its reforms can be institutionalized rather than seen as ad hoc. For example, an OMB-backed efficiency measure can be built into future budget guidelines for agencies, making it a norm. Congressional involvement can lead to statutory changes (laws) that cement improvements beyond the current administration. This addresses a common critique that quick executive-led cuts might be reversed by the next administration or lapse after media attention fades. A well-integrated approach yields long-term savings and performance gains that survive leadership changes.

Cons or Challenges of Stakeholder Integration
While there are clear benefits to following accepted protocols, there are also potential downsides and challenges in deeply integrating stakeholders into an efficiency initiative like DOGE:

• Bureaucratic Slowdown: Opening the process to more oversight and collaboration can slow momentum. What DOGE attempted to do in “30 days” via executive fiat (Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Cost Efficiency Initiative – The White House) (Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Cost Efficiency Initiative – The White House) might, under normal procedure, take months of study, inter-agency review, and negotiation. The involvement of OMB, GAO, and Congress introduces multiple decision layers. For a CEO-type change agent like Musk, this could be frustratingly slow. The urgent drive to “delete stuff, close things” to save money (Explainer: How Musk's US government efficiency panel might work | Reuters) may be hampered by required analyses, public comment periods, or political deliberation. In short, speed and boldness might be sacrificed, potentially disappointing those who expect swift results.

• Dilution of Vision: With many stakeholders, the original vision of the efficiency campaign might get watered down. Compromises with Congress could mean only trivial “low-hanging fruit” are addressed – for instance, cutting back on telework or travel (as discussed in early caucus meetings) (Response to the Department of Government Efficiency - Wikipedia) – rather than politically sensitive spending programs. Likewise, OMB and career officials might resist radical proposals that threaten their agency’s missions, leading to a more cautious plan. The result could be incremental changes rather than the transformative $2 trillion cut that was promised (Explainer: How Musk's US government efficiency panel might work | Reuters). Those seeking dramatic reform might view the consensus approach as too timid or ineffectual.

• Political and Interest-Group Interference: Greater congressional and public involvement means efficiency efforts can become entangled with politics. Lawmakers might push to spare programs that benefit their constituents, even if those programs are inefficient. Powerful interest groups (contractors, federal unions, industry stakeholders) will lobby Congress or OMB to protect their interests. This could undermine DOGE’s objectives – for example, an agency waste identified by DOGE might remain untouched because it enjoys political patronage. The Grace Commission saw its big-ticket recommendations (e.g. altering federal pensions, eliminating certain subsidies) blocked due to political opposition (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY) (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). Similarly, a modern DOGE operating through Congress might find its boldest ideas unachievable in the face of political constraints.

• Loss of Flexibility and Innovation: One argument for a more maverick approach (like having private-sector leaders run DOGE) is that it permits out-of-the-box thinking, unconstrained by “the way things have always been done.” Integrating with traditional bureaucratic processes could rein in innovative approaches. For example, DOGE’s idea to publicly justify every payment and pause those lacking justification (Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Cost Efficiency Initiative – The White House) (Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Cost Efficiency Initiative – The White House) is extreme and novel – standard practice might not consider such micro-level scrutiny feasible. A collaborative process might have dismissed or heavily modified such an idea before trying it. While this avoids disruptions, it also might miss potentially game-changing innovations. Thus, following all protocols could make the effort too status-quo, preventing the very efficiencies outsiders might have achieved.

• Coordination Challenges and Turf Wars: Bringing multiple oversight bodies into the fold can create overlapping authority and confusion. There is a risk of turf wars – for instance, OMB vs. a DOGE task force on who dictates an agency’s cuts, or Congress micromanaging implementation while the executive branch also tries to lead. If roles are not clearly defined, agencies might get mixed signals (e.g., from DOGE vs. their congressional committees) and stall action. Effective integration requires careful clarity in roles – something that is not guaranteed and can be hard to manage in the complex federal system.

Conclusion
The Department of Government Efficiency, inspired in part by the Grace Commission’s ethos, illustrates both the promise and pitfalls of government reform efforts. Operating under modern accepted protocols – with full engagement of congressional overseers, OMB’s managerial expertise, and GAO’s analytical rigor – DOGE could have achieved more credible and sustainable successes. Historical context shows that efficiency drives need broad support: the Grace Commission’s most impactful ideas faltered without legislative backing, a fate DOGE might avoid by deeply partnering with today’s oversight architecture (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY) (How Ronald Reagan Tried to Shrink Government Spending | HISTORY). By embracing transparency (through FACA and open data), legal norms, and collaborative decision-making, DOGE would likely have faced fewer public relations battles and legal challenges. The involvement of bodies like the House Oversight Committee and GAO has already provided a template for how DOGE’s work can align with nonpartisan goals of reducing waste (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability) (Hearing Wrap Up: Congress and DOGE are Utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability). On the other hand, the very speed and bold action that give initiatives like DOGE their initial momentum can be diluted by a slower, more consultative approach. The analysis above suggests that a balance is needed: efficiency reforms work best when guided by evidence and accountability, yet they require strong leadership to overcome inertia. If DOGE had operated within the guardrails of modern protocols, it might have avoided early stumbles and built a coalition to implement tough cuts in a lawful, measured way. Ultimately, the most successful government efficiency initiatives blend the innovative energy of private-sector ideas with the legitimacy and scrutiny of public-sector governance. Harnessing the strengths of both could turn a polarizing campaign into a professionally respected, institutionally grounded effort to benefit taxpayers and improve government performance.

References

Citizens Against Government Waste. (2024, May 3). GAO Annual Report provides opportunities to cut wasteful spending. https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/gao-annual-report-provides-opportunities-cut-wasteful-spending

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. (2025, February 26). Hearing wrap up: Congress and DOGE are utilizing GAO’s High Risk List to combat waste, fraud, and abuse [Press release]. https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-congress-and-doge-are-utilizing-gaos-high-risk-list-to-combat-waste-fraud-and-abuse/

Klein, C. (2024, November 21). How Ronald Reagan tried to shrink government spending. History. https://www.history.com/articles/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-government-efficiency

Sanders, C., Freifeld, K., Shepardson, D., & Alper, A. (2024, November 14). Explainer: How Musk’s US government efficiency panel might work. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-musks-us-government-efficiency-panel-might-work-2024-11-13/

The White House. (2025, February 26). Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” cost efficiency initiative (Executive Order, Presidential Actions). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency-cost-efficiency-initiative/