Federal Employees Hate DOGE Because They Fear Meritocracy

Not everyone attracted to government employment is seeking an easy job with minimal work and oversight, but most are not motivated by patriotic duty when working for agencies like the IRS, ATF, or USAID. In reality, federal bureaucrats often seem to have discovered a shortcut to success. Until the introduction of Elon Musk’s DOGE audits, this assumption held true.

As noted by Dan Aykroyd’s character Ray Stantz in the movie Ghostbusters:

“Personally, I enjoyed working for the university. They provided us with funding and facilities. We didn’t have to deliver results. You’ve never been out of college. You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve worked in the private sector…they expect outcomes!”

For years, it has been a common joke that government employees do very little while receiving hefty paychecks. However, for American taxpayers, this joke is no laughing matter. DOGE audits have revealed significant waste and fraud within the system. Some in the media argue that this information was available to those willing to seek it out, but this overlooks the larger issue.

Until recently, spending data had not been compiled in a way that was easily accessible to the average American. Obtaining this information is intentionally made difficult, likely to discourage independent investigations. The Government Accountability Office fails to do so, instead pretending to scrutinize various agencies while covering up mismanagement. The phrase “hidden in plain sight” comes to mind when discussing government waste.

The situation with federal employment can only be described as rife with “waste” and “fraud.” In 2024, over 3 million workers, the highest number since 1994, were collectively earning around $270 billion annually (including benefits). Federal supervisors are incentivized to give favorable performance reviews to avoid backlash from employees and unions, as well as negative attention for their department. This culture of “conflict avoidance” has led to merit not being the top priority.

Establishment media outlets have previously acknowledged this trend. In 2016, the Washington Post reported that only 0.1% of federal employees ever receive a negative performance review.

In 2013, the Government Accountability Office reviewed federal performance management systems across the 24 CFO Act agencies. After examining OPM data for the calendar year, the GAO found that more than 99% of non-Senior Executive Service employees received a rating of fully successful or higher. This lack of accountability is simply not credible.

If anything, federal workers should face increased scrutiny and be required to demonstrate tangible results regularly. The GAO’s data was disregarded, allowing the easy security of federal employment to continue without disruption. This explains why DOGE’s actions have triggered such a strong reaction from government workers – they have never experienced true meritocracy before.

Many have never worked in the private sector and fail to understand that they are subject to review and potential termination if they do not meet their employers’ standards (the American people). They believe they are immune to consequences, view performance reviews as oppressive, and refuse to be held accountable.

The hysterical response from federal workers to a simple email from DOGE asking about their weekly accomplishments speaks volumes about the bureaucratic culture. The email, which should take no more than 10 minutes to answer, is treated as harassment and a distraction.

It is worth noting that the email was not necessarily intended as a performance indicator, but rather as a test to identify potential issues. Those who refused to respond revealed themselves as potential problems to be addressed later. For those being let go due to poor performance, claims of outstanding reviews from the previous administration hold no weight. The government perpetuates a participation trophy culture – everyone is deemed a winner, regardless of competence.

The federal system’s aversion to meritocracy is evident in how basic job requirements are viewed as abusive. Coupled with the chaos of DEI hiring practices, this sets the stage for financial disaster.

Comparing government waste to the inefficiencies at the original Twitter is not unfounded. After acquiring the platform, Musk reduced Twitter’s staff by 80%, leading to improved functionality. Similar outcomes may be seen within the federal system over time.