In response to Nancy Fairbanks’ recent letter defending the Department of Government Efficiency, it’s important to distinguish between historical precedent and current practice. While the comparison to President Bill Clinton’s reform efforts may sound compelling, it obscures significant differences in process, intent and accountability.
It is misleading to equate Clinton’s National Performance Review, launched in 1993 and led by Vice President Al Gore, with President Donald Trump’s DOGE. The NPR was a data-driven, collaborative initiative built on public transparency, bipartisan input, and meaningful engagement with federal employees. It published detailed reports, welcomed public input, and operated under oversight from the Government Accountability Office.
By contrast, DOGE, created via executive order, has operated with far less transparency. Key decisions have reportedly occurred behind closed doors, with limited documentation or stakeholder engagement. DOGE’s connection to Elon Musk, a private citizen with active corporate interests, raises serious ethical and constitutional concerns. Unlike NPR, DOGE has not released any public methodology for how it evaluates programs or justifies contract cancellations.
DOGE initially projected $2 trillion in savings from eliminating “waste, abuse and fraud.” That goal has since been revised downward to $500 billion, with the administration now claiming just $165 billion in actual savings — a mere 8% of the original target. Of that, $130 billion reportedly stems from canceled federal contracts, and $35 billion from suspended grant programs. These figures come from internal White House summaries and have not been independently verified by the Congressional Budget Office or GAO.
Despite these sweeping cuts, DOGE has yet to uncover any widespread fraud or abuse — and no one has been charged with wrongdoing under its review. Efficiency should not be confused with simply cutting programs, especially when those decisions lack public justification or independent validation.
The claim that DOGE is unquestionably constitutional also deserves scrutiny. Several legal challenges are pending in federal court, including lawsuits alleging Musk’s influence violates the Appointments Clause and federal ethics rules limiting private control over public decision-making. These cases remain unresolved. It is premature to declare DOGE’s legal standing settled.
There are also broad constitutional questions. Congress holds the power of the purse under Article I of the Constitution. If DOGE delays or defunds previously approved federal grants without congressional approval, it may be exceeding the bounds of executive authority under the Impoundment Control Act.
Presidents do have broad authority to manage the executive branch. But not all reform initiatives are created equal. Clinton’s NPR was transparent, internally led, and publicly accountable. DOGE, by contrast, remains tied to one unelected individual, operates opaquely, and has thus far delivered far less than it promised.
Government efficiency is a worthy goal. But reforms should be rooted in facts, law and transparency — not inflated claims or flawed historical comparisons.
Michael Cruz
Canyon Country
