Today, we’re sitting down with Sofia Khaira, a renowned expert in diversity, equity, and inclusion, who brings her extensive experience in human resources to the table. With a deep understanding of federal operations and workforce dynamics, Sofia offers unique insights into the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative, a controversial effort aimed at slashing costs and streamlining federal agencies. In this conversation, we explore the ambitious goals behind DOGE’s launch, the challenges and setbacks it has faced, the unexpected rehiring of workers, the operational struggles within agencies, and the persistent rise in federal spending despite promises of cuts. Sofia sheds light on the complexities of workforce management and policy implementation in the federal government, providing a nuanced perspective on what’s gone wrong and what it means for the future.
Can you walk us through the original vision for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative and what it was supposed to accomplish?
When DOGE was first introduced, the core idea was to tackle what many saw as a bloated federal government by drastically cutting costs and improving operational efficiency. The Trump administration pitched it as a bold fix for long-standing issues like waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending. They promised significant savings—figures as high as $1 trillion were thrown around at one point—and a leaner government that would work better for taxpayers. It was framed as a way to make agencies more accountable and responsive, with specific goals like canceling costly contracts and terminating unnecessary leases to reverse the trend of spending more than the government collects.
What do you believe are the primary reasons DOGE has fallen short of those ambitious goals, based on the data we’ve seen?
There are several layers to this. First, the targets for savings and efficiency were incredibly optimistic, if not outright unrealistic. Cutting $1 trillion in a short timeframe without touching major programs like Social Security or defense—where most of the budget goes—was always going to be a stretch. Additionally, the initiative’s data has been criticized for factual errors and unverifiable claims, which has eroded public trust. When savings numbers don’t add up or contracts listed as canceled are still active, it’s hard to take the reported progress seriously. On top of that, the haphazard implementation, including deep workforce cuts without clear plans for maintaining operations, created more chaos than efficiency.
Let’s talk about the rehiring of federal workers after significant layoffs. Can you explain why agencies are bringing people back so soon after cutting them?
Essentially, many agencies realized they cut too deep, too fast. Without enough staff, they couldn’t handle basic functions or support key policy priorities. For instance, places like the Labor Department and the General Services Administration (GSA) are rehiring hundreds because they’re struggling with real estate management and other core tasks. Some workers who took buyout offers or deferred resignation deals are being offered their jobs back, though often with caveats about future security. It’s a reaction to the reality that you can’t slash 1 in 8 civilian workers overnight and expect everything to run smoothly, especially with complex mandates like immigration enforcement or safety inspections.
How are specific agencies being impacted by these workforce reductions, particularly in their ability to carry out critical operations?
The impact is stark in several areas. At the Justice Department, the loss of over 125 immigration judges since the year began has directly undermined efforts to ramp up immigration enforcement—a key goal for the administration. Fewer judges mean slower case processing, creating bottlenecks. Similarly, the Bureau of Land Management is grappling with severe staffing shortages, to the point where local managers are desperate to retain people just to keep offices functional. Then there are real estate headaches—GSA and the Labor Department are scrambling to secure new leases or office space after DOGE canceled agreements, which disrupts everything from mine safety inspections to ICE operations.
Despite DOGE’s focus on cutting costs, federal spending has risen by hundreds of billions. What’s driving this increase, in your view?
The rise in spending—about $376 billion more than the previous year—comes largely from areas that DOGE couldn’t or wouldn’t touch. About 64% of the budget goes to mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ benefits, which are politically untouchable and growing due to demographic trends. Another big chunk is interest on the national debt, which is ballooning with a $37.5 trillion deficit, and defense spending, which takes up 13%. Discretionary spending, where DOGE focused, is just a small slice of the pie. Cutting it is tough because it funds visible, often popular programs, and the savings there can’t offset the massive growth in other areas. DOGE’s approach didn’t address these structural drivers.
How do you see the tension between DOGE’s stated mission and the operational realities playing out for federal employees on the ground?
There’s a real disconnect. Federal workers are caught in a whirlwind of uncertainty—some were cut and then rehired with no guarantee of stability, others are on paid administrative leave with no clear future, like at the Department of Agriculture. At agencies like GSA, employees face pressure to accept reinstatement offers or lose severance benefits, which feels coercive. Meanwhile, those still on the job, like at the Bureau of Land Management, are stretched thin under rules limiting new hires. Add a government shutdown into the mix, with threats of permanent job cuts, and morale is understandably low. DOGE’s mission of efficiency often translates to chaos for the workforce.
What is your forecast for the future of federal efficiency efforts like DOGE, given the challenges and contradictions we’ve discussed?
I think initiatives like DOGE will continue to struggle unless there’s a fundamental shift in approach. Without addressing the big-ticket items like entitlements and debt interest, which require congressional action and political will, any efficiency effort will just nibble at the edges of the budget. Operationally, agencies need better planning—cuts can’t outpace the capacity to function, or you end up rehiring and wasting more money. There’s also a trust deficit; unverifiable claims and data errors undermine credibility. My forecast is cautious: without transparency, realistic goals, and a focus on sustainable workforce management, future efforts risk repeating DOGE’s missteps, leaving both taxpayers and federal employees frustrated.
