DOGE Disrupts Washington: Musk and Trump Slash Government Spending, Spark Controversy Over Efficiency Reforms
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
ご購入は五十タイトルがカートに入っている場合のみです。
カートに追加できませんでした。
しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
DOGE Disrupts Washington: Musk and Trump Slash Government Spending, Spark Controversy Over Efficiency Reforms
-
ナレーター：
-
著者：
このコンテンツについて
While officials tout DOGE’s achievements—claiming over $160 billion in savings by rooting out waste and fraud—critics have called attention to unintended consequences. Mistaken firings, such as key bird flu experts at the Department of Agriculture, forced agencies to rehire staff. Many federal workers now spend significant time documenting accomplishments rather than executing core duties, leading to friction and claims of lowered productivity[2].
DOGE’s approach and transparency are hotly contested. Although Musk publicly defends the initiative as transparent, the Supreme Court recently exempted DOGE from some disclosure laws. There are warnings from opposition voices and legal scholars about potential constitutional crises, and lawsuits are already emerging from those affected by agency dismantlings and massive layoffs[3].
Public sentiment remains divided. Polls show that 57% of Americans disapprove of Musk’s handling of DOGE, and about six in ten worry that the Trump administration is going too far in shrinking government’s size and role[2]. Yet, the White House remains staunchly defensive, dismissing criticisms as politically motivated attacks and affirming the administration’s commitment to making government leaner and more effective.
DOGE’s impact extends beyond cost-cutting. The so-called “Washington DOGE Test”—a blend of whimsical branding and serious benchmarking—is stirring debate about what true government efficiency should look like and whether standardized metrics can accurately capture public sector performance[1]. As the DOGE experiment continues, both its supporters and detractors agree: Washington’s efficiency standard is being rewritten in real time, but the final grade is still up for debate.