In general, do you support the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency?

👍 Yes (45%) – "We have a bloated federal government bureaucracy that we the people did not elect. We are increasingly ruled by appointed classes that promote their own longevity, prosperity and do not answer to the people they are suppose to serve."

• "The US has a ridiculous amount of dept yet still outspends its "income". Many government programs aren't efficient with their budgets at all, and many programs are not needed. By limiting the excessive spending and checking these programs, they can slow down the mounting debt, and buy time for another solution."

"This is what I am most excited about with the new administration. There is so much waste in our government. We fund some ridiculous projects; projects that should not be funded by the government. It's a waste of our tax dollars. If we can cut some of this wasteful spending, we might be able to reduce our national debt, which is terrifying, and hopefully start to rebuild our country."

• "Our government has never put in the effort to make their operations efficient. There are inefficiencies in every department, they are run by career bureaucrats who just carry on whatever was the norm. It’s way past time that someone shined a light on these problems and hopefully the congress can cooperate and approve the recommendations made by the DOGE panel."

"As hard-working educators, my husband and I have had to live within our means for all of our married lives. We have paid off our student loans, budgeted, saved, and made sacrifices to provide for our family. It has not been without difficulty but it has also made us who we are today. The government--"big" government--has, for far too long, been able to spend at will with very little accountability and oversight. We as taxpayers have had very little say except with our vote. While I certainly appreciate my tax dollars funding the services we need as citizens, I also appreciate the fact that there finally may be that accountability piece that has been missing for so many years! I'm looking forward to seeing how DOGE operates and the waste it cuts for the betterment of ALL citizens and taxpayers."

👎 No (41%) – "Aside from the trolling of the American public with DOGE-coin references, the budget for federal workforce is tiny compared to overall spending. The goal is to appease tribalism, by cutting out the "Deep State" and "swamp," when reality is healthcare/military dwarf the issue (not too dissimilar from trans issues (1.5% of the American public) being a campaign focus) of "government efficiency." Moreover, what's the bias from these two?"

• "These men operate on the assumption that the market naturally regulates itself to a superior product. In reality, removing regulations end up with sub-par products that actively harm consumers in the name of better bottom lines."

"I like the idea of making government more efficient and reducing costs. Every business needs to do this to keep costs low, so this is a good idea for government. However, I wish the department operated within the bounds of government and those running it were vetted and appointed. Listening to comments made by both, I don't think they have as much experience in this area as people I've worked with. It's one thing to run a company you created from the ground up and another to evaluate a business/department and identify where changes/improvements could be made. Further, neither have demonstrated success at this in their own companies. Finally, Vivek has stated that "everyone knows" that 100% of the work is done by 10% of the people. He said this to explain why roles should be cut. This simply isn't factual-- and where it is, the business is incredibly poorly run. I don't believe that about the government. Finally, Elon's statements that people will be cut based on odd/even SSNs further demonstrates a lack of maturity of thought on this. Before cutting roles, it would be useful for the two to find out what the departments do and the value they bring. But focusing on cutting roles so early on is a headlines-grabbing way of fear mongering. Very unprofessional!"

• "While the idea of reducing government inefficiency is admirable, the two people in charge are both unserious and self-motivated. That they do not have to divest their business interests suggests they can operate in their self-interest making the whole enterprise suspect. Too, who is to say they will not poach federal employees for their own businesses?"

🤷 Unsure/other (14%) – "In theory, the department sounds like a great step towards making the country work better. However, the fact that it is outside of the federal government and neither chair member has to disclose their business holdings is problematic, and also that it seems like a quid pro quo to Musk for spending millions to get Trump elected is a symptom of a deeper rot that DOGE won't touch."

• "No matter your political leanings, just about anyone would agree that governments can create inefficient and wasteful spending, and that trying to be more cost effective would benefit American citizens. By selecting the candidates he has, the incoming president demonstrates no commitment to a genuine effort to accomplish this, as much as opening the floodgates to large corporate interests under the veil of removing regulations."