America’s “Efficiency” Fixation Is Becoming an Excuse to Neglect What Actually Works
Efficiency sounds like virtue without ideology—but in public life it often means cutting the measurable while neglecting the capacity people actually rely on.
By TheMurrow Editorial
February 13, 2026
Key Points
- 1Recognize how “efficiency” often rewards measurable cuts while undermining fairness, safety margins, institutional memory, and crisis resilience people depend on.
- 2Watch for Goodhart’s Law: when agencies chase throughput, headcount, or closures, metrics can improve as real outcomes deteriorate.
- 3Demand reforms that protect capability—training pipelines, enforcement deterrence, and data safeguards—before celebrating speed, attrition, or shrinking budgets.
Efficiency sounds like virtue—until it becomes a cover for cuts
Efficiency is one of America’s favorite words because it sounds like virtue without ideology. Who could be against doing more with less, faster and cheaper?
Yet in public life, “efficient” often means something narrower: fewer workers, shorter lines, slimmer budgets, faster processing times. Those are measurable. The things people actually depend on—fairness, safety margins, institutional memory, resilience in a crisis, the quiet competence that keeps systems from failing—are harder to count, easier to cut, and painful to rebuild.
The country is watching an old argument return with new branding. President Trump has announced a “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), framed as a mission to slash regulations, cut expenditures, and restructure agencies, with work expected to conclude no later than July 4, 2026, according to CBS News reporting. DOGE has become a political shorthand: a promise that the state can be made leaner without losing what makes it function.
The problem isn’t the desire to waste less. The problem is mistaking waste for capacity—and metrics for reality.
Yet in public life, “efficient” often means something narrower: fewer workers, shorter lines, slimmer budgets, faster processing times. Those are measurable. The things people actually depend on—fairness, safety margins, institutional memory, resilience in a crisis, the quiet competence that keeps systems from failing—are harder to count, easier to cut, and painful to rebuild.
The country is watching an old argument return with new branding. President Trump has announced a “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), framed as a mission to slash regulations, cut expenditures, and restructure agencies, with work expected to conclude no later than July 4, 2026, according to CBS News reporting. DOGE has become a political shorthand: a promise that the state can be made leaner without losing what makes it function.
The problem isn’t the desire to waste less. The problem is mistaking waste for capacity—and metrics for reality.
In government, the easiest numbers to improve are often the ones least connected to what the public actually needs.
— — TheMurrow Editorial
The seduction of “efficiency” and the danger of measuring the wrong thing
A functioning public agency is not a factory line. Many of its most valuable outputs are defensive: accidents that don’t happen, fraud that gets discouraged, delays that get avoided, disputes that get settled before they become lawsuits. When reforms focus on what can be tallied in a dashboard—calls handled per hour, cases closed per week, headcount reduced per quarter—leaders risk optimizing proxies rather than outcomes.
Scholars have a name for that dynamic: Goodhart’s Law, often summarized as “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Recent work continues to formalize and test Goodhart-type effects in modern optimization contexts, reflecting a broader concern: when institutions are managed to hit a metric, the metric can stop tracking what it once represented. (See: arxiv.org/abs/2505.23445)
Scholars have a name for that dynamic: Goodhart’s Law, often summarized as “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Recent work continues to formalize and test Goodhart-type effects in modern optimization contexts, reflecting a broader concern: when institutions are managed to hit a metric, the metric can stop tracking what it once represented. (See: arxiv.org/abs/2505.23445)
What proxy optimization looks like in practice
Proxy optimization in public services tends to follow a recognizable pattern:
- Political pressure to show results quickly
- Management targets that emphasize speed, volume, or cuts
- Short-term improvements on paper
- Long-term fragility as experience, surge capacity, and compliance safeguards erode
Efficiency rhetoric also tends to collapse two different questions into one. The first is moral and fiscal: should the government do less? The second is operational: can it do what it is responsible for, reliably and lawfully? Americans can disagree about the first question. The second is less ideological than it appears.
- Political pressure to show results quickly
- Management targets that emphasize speed, volume, or cuts
- Short-term improvements on paper
- Long-term fragility as experience, surge capacity, and compliance safeguards erode
Efficiency rhetoric also tends to collapse two different questions into one. The first is moral and fiscal: should the government do less? The second is operational: can it do what it is responsible for, reliably and lawfully? Americans can disagree about the first question. The second is less ideological than it appears.
Why the hardest-to-measure outputs matter most
Public trust is built not by slogans but by consistent performance under stress. Due process, data integrity, equity in access, and safety margins rarely show up as line items in a budget victory lap. When they degrade, the costs show up elsewhere: in court backlogs, preventable failures, or lost revenue.
The public doesn’t experience government as ‘efficient.’ People experience it as competent—or not.
— — TheMurrow Editorial
DOGE: efficiency as a political brand, not an operating plan
DOGE is a potent symbol because it translates a complicated managerial task into something legible to voters: cut waste, cut rules, cut staff. Coverage has framed it as a vehicle for major workforce reductions linked to deregulation—what The Washington Post described in terms of “mass head-count reductions.”
DOGE’s timeline—work expected to end by July 4, 2026, per CBS News—adds to the sense that the goal is not merely reform but rapid transformation. Speed can be valuable. Speed can also be a way of bypassing the slow work of institutional change: piloting, auditing, training, building safeguards, and accepting that some public functions cannot be streamlined without tradeoffs.
DOGE’s timeline—work expected to end by July 4, 2026, per CBS News—adds to the sense that the goal is not merely reform but rapid transformation. Speed can be valuable. Speed can also be a way of bypassing the slow work of institutional change: piloting, auditing, training, building safeguards, and accepting that some public functions cannot be streamlined without tradeoffs.
The remote-work rollback as an “efficiency lever”
One policy idea associated with DOGE’s orbit has been remote-work rollbacks as a lever to induce attrition. Forbes cited widely referenced federal workforce figures: about 1.1 million federal civilian workers (46%) qualify for some level of telework, while around 228,000 (10%) are remote.
Those numbers matter because they turn a workplace policy into a staffing policy. Supporters argue that stricter in-office requirements can restore accountability and collaboration. Critics argue that using workplace mandates to force quits is a blunt instrument—especially if agencies lose specialized staff who can find comparable work elsewhere.
Those numbers matter because they turn a workplace policy into a staffing policy. Supporters argue that stricter in-office requirements can restore accountability and collaboration. Critics argue that using workplace mandates to force quits is a blunt instrument—especially if agencies lose specialized staff who can find comparable work elsewhere.
46%
Forbes cited that about 1.1 million federal civilian workers (46%) qualify for some level of telework.
10%
Forbes cited that roughly 228,000 federal workers (10%) are remote—making workplace policy a de facto staffing lever.
When “move fast” collides with governance
A separate controversy suggests another risk of disruption framed as efficiency. The Guardian reported on a DOJ court filing described as stating that DOGE staff improperly accessed and shared sensitive Social Security data, raising legal and ethical alarms.
Even if one brackets the specifics of any single allegation, the principle is straightforward: public systems are not only service machines; they are custodians of sensitive data and legal obligations. An efficiency campaign that treats compliance as friction can create liabilities that swamp any savings.
Even if one brackets the specifics of any single allegation, the principle is straightforward: public systems are not only service machines; they are custodians of sensitive data and legal obligations. An efficiency campaign that treats compliance as friction can create liabilities that swamp any savings.
If speed becomes the highest value, safeguards start to look like ‘waste’—right up until they prevent a disaster.
— — TheMurrow Editorial
Case study: IRS staffing cuts and the high price of “saving money”
If you want to see how “efficiency” can backfire, watch what happens when government reduces the staff that generates revenue or prevents losses.
A watchdog-based report covered by CNBC/Reuters stated that as of March 2025 the IRS workforce had fallen by more than 11,000 employees (11%). The same coverage reported separations were especially high among revenue agents (auditors): 3,623 lost, about 31%.
Those are not generic administrative positions. Revenue agents are the people who examine complex returns, investigate discrepancies, and pursue enforcement actions that deter evasion. Cutting them reduces payroll spending in the short run. It can also reduce collections, weaken deterrence, and increase the perception—fair or not—that compliance is optional for the well-advised.
A watchdog-based report covered by CNBC/Reuters stated that as of March 2025 the IRS workforce had fallen by more than 11,000 employees (11%). The same coverage reported separations were especially high among revenue agents (auditors): 3,623 lost, about 31%.
Those are not generic administrative positions. Revenue agents are the people who examine complex returns, investigate discrepancies, and pursue enforcement actions that deter evasion. Cutting them reduces payroll spending in the short run. It can also reduce collections, weaken deterrence, and increase the perception—fair or not—that compliance is optional for the well-advised.
11,000 (11%)
CNBC/Reuters reported the IRS workforce fell by more than 11,000 employees (11%) as of March 2025.
3,623 (31%)
CNBC/Reuters reported separations were especially high among revenue agents: 3,623 lost, about 31%.
Time-to-competence is the hidden cost
The rhetoric of efficiency often implies that staff are interchangeable. Most Americans know that isn’t true in their own workplaces. It isn’t true at the IRS either. Auditing sophisticated returns requires training, mentorship, and experience. Losing a cohort of revenue agents is not like turning down a knob and later turning it back up.
CNBC/Reuters linked the staffing losses to probationary terminations and a “deferred resignation” approach amid broader budget politics around enforcement resources. However one views IRS enforcement philosophically, a basic operational fact remains: when you reduce capacity in a specialized function, the system’s performance does not bounce back on command.
CNBC/Reuters linked the staffing losses to probationary terminations and a “deferred resignation” approach amid broader budget politics around enforcement resources. However one views IRS enforcement philosophically, a basic operational fact remains: when you reduce capacity in a specialized function, the system’s performance does not bounce back on command.
Multiple perspectives: enforcement, fairness, and burden
Skeptics of IRS expansion argue that more enforcement can mean more intrusive government and more compliance burden. Supporters of enforcement argue that under-resourced auditing shifts the burden onto wage earners whose taxes are easier to collect, while sophisticated evasion goes under-policed.
A serious efficiency debate has to acknowledge both. The goal should not be maximal enforcement. The goal should be a credible, competent enforcement posture that maintains fairness and voluntary compliance.
A serious efficiency debate has to acknowledge both. The goal should not be maximal enforcement. The goal should be a credible, competent enforcement posture that maintains fairness and voluntary compliance.
Case study: air traffic control and the fragility of “lean”
Some systems can tolerate being run hot. Aviation is not one of them.
A Government Accountability Office report dated Dec. 17, 2025 found that the FAA employed 13,164 controllers at the end of FY2025, about 6% fewer than 2015. Over roughly the same period, total flights increased about 10%, reaching 30.8 million flights using the air traffic control system between FY2015 and FY2024.
Those figures describe a system being asked to do more with fewer people. Efficiency talk tends to celebrate that. Safety professionals tend to worry about it.
A Government Accountability Office report dated Dec. 17, 2025 found that the FAA employed 13,164 controllers at the end of FY2025, about 6% fewer than 2015. Over roughly the same period, total flights increased about 10%, reaching 30.8 million flights using the air traffic control system between FY2015 and FY2024.
Those figures describe a system being asked to do more with fewer people. Efficiency talk tends to celebrate that. Safety professionals tend to worry about it.
13,164
GAO reported the FAA employed 13,164 controllers at the end of FY2025—about 6% fewer than 2015.
Hiring and training are not quick fixes
GAO described air traffic controller hiring and training as long and complex—two to six years. Even medical clearance can take up to two years.
That timeline matters for policy. If staffing is allowed to fall below needs, a later “course correction” cannot deliver trained controllers in time to relieve near-term strain. When public services depend on long training pipelines, “lean” is not just a budget choice; it’s a risk posture.
That timeline matters for policy. If staffing is allowed to fall below needs, a later “course correction” cannot deliver trained controllers in time to relieve near-term strain. When public services depend on long training pipelines, “lean” is not just a budget choice; it’s a risk posture.
Why the public only notices after something goes wrong
Aviation safety is a classic example of an “invisible success.” When controllers do their jobs well, flights land and no one writes a headline. The incentive structure in politics is the opposite: reward visible cuts now, deal with invisible risks later. That mismatch is why safety-critical systems often need governance structures that resist short-termism.
The compliance problem: when efficiency initiatives break rules and trust
Efficiency campaigns often collide with two constraints that private companies can sometimes ignore: legality and legitimacy. Public agencies cannot simply “move fast” and apologize later. They handle benefit payments, immigration statuses, tax disputes, safety inspections, and personal data. Errors are not only costly; they can be rights violations.
The Guardian’s account of a DOJ court filing regarding allegedly improper access and sharing of sensitive Social Security data by DOGE staff illustrates what can happen when reformers treat governance as an obstacle. Even the perception of mishandling data can damage trust—especially for systems like Social Security that rely on public confidence.
The Guardian’s account of a DOJ court filing regarding allegedly improper access and sharing of sensitive Social Security data by DOGE staff illustrates what can happen when reformers treat governance as an obstacle. Even the perception of mishandling data can damage trust—especially for systems like Social Security that rely on public confidence.
Trust is a form of capacity
The policy conversation often treats trust as soft. It isn’t. Trust determines whether people comply voluntarily, whether they apply for benefits they are eligible for, and whether they believe processes are fair. Once eroded, trust is expensive to rebuild.
Efficiency reforms that produce a sense of chaos can also trigger a practical response: skilled employees leave. Contractors raise prices. Applicants stop applying. The system becomes more expensive precisely because it has been made less stable.
Efficiency reforms that produce a sense of chaos can also trigger a practical response: skilled employees leave. Contractors raise prices. Applicants stop applying. The system becomes more expensive precisely because it has been made less stable.
Efficiency vs. capability: what government is actually for
A useful way to clarify the argument is to separate efficiency from capability.
- Efficiency asks: How cheaply can a task be performed?
- Capability asks: Can the task be performed well, lawfully, repeatedly, and under stress?
Public agencies exist because certain functions need stability: collecting revenue, keeping aircraft separated, paying benefits correctly, enforcing rules consistently, responding to disasters, and adjudicating rights. If reforms treat these functions as cost centers rather than as risk managers, the public gets a state that is thinner but not necessarily better.
- Efficiency asks: How cheaply can a task be performed?
- Capability asks: Can the task be performed well, lawfully, repeatedly, and under stress?
Public agencies exist because certain functions need stability: collecting revenue, keeping aircraft separated, paying benefits correctly, enforcing rules consistently, responding to disasters, and adjudicating rights. If reforms treat these functions as cost centers rather than as risk managers, the public gets a state that is thinner but not necessarily better.
Efficiency vs. Capability
Before
- Efficiency — How cheaply can a task be performed?
After
- Capability — Can it be done well
- lawfully
- repeatedly
- and under stress?
The cost of losing institutional knowledge
Institutional knowledge is the most underappreciated asset in government. It includes:
- Knowing how statutes interact in edge cases
- Knowing how to catch fraud patterns without harassing legitimate users
- Knowing how to coordinate with other agencies under pressure
- Knowing where past reforms failed and why
Workforce reductions that appear “efficient” can be a transfer of costs from the present to the future. The bill comes due in backlogs, mistakes, and preventable crises.
- Knowing how statutes interact in edge cases
- Knowing how to catch fraud patterns without harassing legitimate users
- Knowing how to coordinate with other agencies under pressure
- Knowing where past reforms failed and why
Workforce reductions that appear “efficient” can be a transfer of costs from the present to the future. The bill comes due in backlogs, mistakes, and preventable crises.
A more adult version of efficiency: practical takeaways for reform that works
Skepticism toward waste is healthy. The question is whether leaders can pursue savings without collapsing the capabilities that make public services work.
Here are practical principles implied by the evidence in the current debate:
Here are practical principles implied by the evidence in the current debate:
Practical principles for efficiency that doesn’t break capability
- 1.1) Don’t treat headcount as the primary measure of waste
- 2.2) Match metrics to outcomes, not optics
- 3.3) Respect training pipelines and time-to-competence
- 4.4) Treat governance and data protections as core work
- 5.5) Make efficiency reforms legible in terms of service quality
1) Don’t treat headcount as the primary measure of waste
The IRS case shows why. CNBC/Reuters reported a 31% loss of revenue agents and an 11% overall workforce drop by March 2025. If a cut reduces collections or raises downstream costs, it may be “efficient” only in the narrowest accounting sense.
2) Match metrics to outcomes, not optics
Goodhart’s Law isn’t an academic parlor trick. If the goal is safety, measure safety margins and staffing resilience—not just throughput. If the goal is compliance, measure durable compliance—not just case closures.
3) Respect training pipelines and time-to-competence
GAO’s finding that controller training can take 2–6 years and medical clearance up to 2 years should end the fantasy that staffing can be “right-sized” quickly. The same logic applies to auditors and other specialized roles.
4) Treat governance and data protections as core work
The alleged Social Security data episode reported by The Guardian is a reminder: compliance isn’t red tape; it’s how the government proves it deserves authority. Reform that weakens safeguards is not reform. It is risk.
5) Make efficiency reforms legible in terms of service quality
Voters deserve more than slogans. If DOGE is the banner, the public should demand the operational plan: What service levels will be protected? What risks are acceptable? What safeguards are non-negotiable? What happens when the numbers look good but outcomes worsen?
A final political reality: DOGE has already become locally salient. Axios reported on Feb. 13, 2026 that a former federal contractor laid off amid DOGE-related disruption is running for mayor of Washington, D.C. That is what happens when “efficiency” stops being a talking point and starts being a lived experience.
The country doesn’t need a government that is merely cheaper. Americans need a government that works—especially when it’s hard.
A final political reality: DOGE has already become locally salient. Axios reported on Feb. 13, 2026 that a former federal contractor laid off amid DOGE-related disruption is running for mayor of Washington, D.C. That is what happens when “efficiency” stops being a talking point and starts being a lived experience.
The country doesn’t need a government that is merely cheaper. Americans need a government that works—especially when it’s hard.
Key Insight
Reform succeeds when it protects service quality—revenue collection, aviation safety, due process, and data safeguards—rather than merely shrinking headcount or speeding up dashboards.
Conclusion: Efficiency is not a synonym for competence
America’s efficiency obsession is understandable. People have waited on hold, watched forms disappear into bureaucratic fog, and seen projects cost too much. Reform is necessary.
But “efficiency” becomes a problem when it turns into a moral credential that excuses disinvestment. DOGE’s promise—cuts and speed—will always sound clean. The real world is not clean. The real world has training pipelines, enforcement deterrence, safety margins, due process, and sensitive data.
The most dangerous reform is the one that improves the spreadsheet while degrading the system.
A government that cannot staff auditors, train controllers, protect Social Security data, or retain experienced professionals is not lean. It is brittle. And brittle systems don’t fail politely. They fail all at once.
But “efficiency” becomes a problem when it turns into a moral credential that excuses disinvestment. DOGE’s promise—cuts and speed—will always sound clean. The real world is not clean. The real world has training pipelines, enforcement deterrence, safety margins, due process, and sensitive data.
The most dangerous reform is the one that improves the spreadsheet while degrading the system.
A government that cannot staff auditors, train controllers, protect Social Security data, or retain experienced professionals is not lean. It is brittle. And brittle systems don’t fail politely. They fail all at once.
T
About the Author
TheMurrow Editorial is a writer for TheMurrow covering opinion.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)?
DOGE is an initiative announced by President Trump framed around cutting regulations, reducing expenditures, and restructuring agencies. CBS News reported that DOGE’s work is expected to conclude no later than July 4, 2026. Supporters see it as a long-overdue push against waste; critics worry it prioritizes rapid cuts over service quality and legal safeguards.
Why can “efficiency” make government services worse?
Because efficiency efforts often target what’s easiest to measure—headcount, throughput, processing speed—rather than what matters most, like safety, fairness, and resilience. That dynamic is commonly described through Goodhart’s Law: when a measure becomes a target, it can stop reflecting real performance. The result can be better metrics but worse outcomes.
What do IRS staffing cuts have to do with efficiency?
CNBC/Reuters reported that by March 2025 the IRS workforce fell by more than 11,000 employees (11%), including the loss of 3,623 revenue agents—about 31%. Revenue agents generate collections and deterrence. Treating specialized enforcement staffing as “waste” can reduce capacity in ways that cost more than they save over time.
Why is air traffic control staffing a warning sign?
GAO reported that the FAA had 13,164 controllers at the end of FY2025—about 6% fewer than 2015—even as flights increased about 10% to 30.8 million (FY2015–FY2024). GAO also noted hiring and training can take 2–6 years, with medical clearance sometimes taking up to 2 years. Lean staffing in a safety-critical system can increase fragility.
How does remote work factor into government “efficiency” debates?
Some DOGE-adjacent ideas include rolling back telework to drive attrition. Forbes cited that about 1.1 million federal civilian workers (46%) qualify for some telework and roughly 228,000 (10%) are remote. The debate is less about where people sit and more about whether workplace rules are being used as a staffing-cut mechanism.
What would “smart efficiency” look like in practice?
Smart efficiency would protect capability while cutting genuine waste. That means aligning metrics with outcomes (not optics), respecting long training pipelines, and treating compliance and data safeguards as essential work. It also means judging reforms by whether services remain reliable—tax enforcement that deters evasion, air traffic control that maintains safety margins—not by whether an agency simply becomes smaller.
