The Executive Office of the President 

 2.12 The Bureaucracy 

2.14 Holding the Bureaucracy Accountable  

The government undertakes responsibilities beyond creating laws, resolving disputes, and setting national priorities, which are primary functions of Congress, the judiciary, and the president. It is also tasked with constructing roads, delivering mail, securing borders, inspecting food, carrying out medical research, safeguarding the environment, collecting taxes, ensuring citizen safety, and distributing Social Security payments, among other duties. In fact, government agencies provide many essential services that contribute to modern civilised life. These responsibilities, along with numerous others, are managed by bureaucrats, and government employees who have faced substantial criticism throughout American history. The federal bureaucracy is sometimes referred to as the fourth branch of government, despite only a vague reference to it in the Constitution. From its beginnings under the Articles of Confederation, the administrative arm of the national government has grown significantly, extending its reach across the nation and globally.

Concerns regarding the expanding role of government have persisted for many years, with the terms bureaucracy and bureaucrat often associated with inefficiency, excessive regulation, and the unwanted intrusion of governmental authority into areas better suited for the private sector. When Ronald Reagan took office as president in 1981, he highlighted bureaucracy as a critical issue in American society. In discussing the economic challenges facing the nation at that time, he argued emphatically that “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” This skepticism towards government intervention has not been limited to Republican leaders. Democrat Jimmy Carter, during his 1976 presidential campaign, criticized Washington and promised to reorganise the government and reduce the national budget, which he perceived as burdened by wastefulness. Similarly, President Bill Clinton echoed these sentiments in a speech to Congress on January 23, 1996.

We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there’s not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means… . The era of big government is over. 

Multiple factors have shaped a uniquely American approach to public bureaucracy, including a cultural skepticism towards government authority and capability, the absence of constitutional grounding, ambiguous guidance, political obligations imposed on neutral agents, and trial-and-error organisational frameworks.

Cultural skepticism toward government authority and capability has been noted for decades. Political scientist Harold Laski remarked that many Americans perceive government actions as inferior to those executed by individuals or private corporations. This perspective remains relevant today. Recent Gallup polls indicate that less than half of Americans have confidence in the government’s ability to address both domestic and international issues. Trust in handling domestic matters hovered around fifty per cent during the Obama administration and has declined further under President Trump. Many Americans equate bureaucracy with sluggishness and ineffectiveness. They hold a strong belief that individual choices within a marketplace result in greater efficiency, viewing government spending as wasteful. By 2014, it was estimated that 51 cents of every dollar paid in taxes to Washington, D.C. was perceived as squandered. In contrast, many European countries possess longstanding traditions of robust central government bureaucracies that played a crucial role in their development as nation-states. In some of these countries, such as France, government officials often maintain a distinct identity separate from politicians, leading citizens to demonstrate more respect and support for bureaucratic actions than is common in the United States. However, this trend may be shifting. The rise of populist movements across Europe has increased public distrust of traditional institutions, with the military being a notable exception. As faith in national governments wanes in Europe, the respect historically shown towards government administrators may also diminish.

DOGE generated significant opposition, including lawsuits, threats, and violence from individuals who felt it was disrupting government services. Elon Musk left his role with the administration in May 2025 after publicly criticizing a spending bill from the Trump administration. While he stated he would remain involved, his full-time role ended. 

More than two million government employees have been offered a "buyout" deal to leave but some fired staff have been rehired

While tackling so-called "woke" policies, Musk said his team had "saved taxpayers over $1bn in crazy DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] contracts" The vast majority of programmes run by USAID, America's main foreign aid organisation, have been cut

Political opponents and government watchdogs have criticised Doge for acting without transparency and spreading misinformation about government spending - and accuse Musk of overstepping his authority as an unelected official.

They highlight potential conflicts of interest, given Musk's businesses hold contracts with the US government worth billions. Trump and Musk deny that any conflicts have arisen.

Democrats accuse them of tampering with funding approved by Congress that is outside the president's scope. The White House denies that the work has broken any laws.

Multiple groups including unions and state attorneys general have sued Doge and the wider Trump administration over their plans.

On several occasions the courts have stepped in to halt the cost-cutting moves, at least once blocking Doge directly when a judge stopping the agency from accessing personal data held within US Treasury records.

And although Musk and Trump have portrayed the unofficial department as a common sense reaction to "waste" and "fraud", they have been accused of spreading falsehoods about some of the activities they have claimed to cut.