In general, how do you feel about DOGE’s cost-cutting efforts across the federal government thus far?

👍 Support (34%) – "I have seen government waste and inefficiency second hand. While many federal workers are hard-working, often their hands are tied with red tape. I wholeheartedly support hiring by merit and making tax-payer's sacrifice worthwhile."

• "Government is synonymous with wasteful spending. People have been calling for these kinds of changes since the government began spending money. It’s long overdue and much needed. I think, at the least, it’s just nice to have a group dedicated to keep spending in check."

"Complaining about the savings not being as much as projected by DOGE is ignoring the fact that agencies are forced to open their books. First administration to try and reverse the trend of government overreach and loose controls on spending."

👎 Oppose (56%) – "I support cutting wasteful spending, but this is not the way to do it. I would support a careful, thoughtful budget overhaul for many of these organizations, but this feels like someone is taking a scythe through the government. They are cutting people's jobs and funding without taking the time to see what is important and what is superfluous, which frustrates me. So many people are being affected by these changes."

• "There are so many opportunities for savings but DOGE is not a legitimate way of doing so. It is cherry picking and sensationalizing. There should be a legitimate, transparent process led by both Congress and the executive branch to do this."

"I think they don't understand the information behind the numbers and are just cutting willy nilly. I'm also troubled by the conflicts of interests with Musk's businesses. They have people who are good at computers, but possibly don't understand the ramifications behind those numbers."

• "I fully support reducing government spending and balancing the budget. But this approach is more about publicity than actual efficiency. Sending in an outside group with no knowledge of government agencies or training in data protection to do this work is not the way to do it. This approach also does not include Congress who is responsible for allocating federal funds. This approach continues to reinforce the idea that government agencies are bloated and federal workers are inefficient. There is never any mention of the spending and costs from two wars and other realities that have added to the deficit."

"Not a sactioned audior or elected official. No business making these policies. Recommendation are one thing, but the purse strings are protected in Article 4 of our Constitution."

🤷 Unsure/other (10%) – "I feel it is hard to deny there has been egregious and questionable spending on the part of the federal government, and more transparency and oversight is long past due. I'm not exactly opposed to the "shock and awe" approach to slashing spending, sometimes it's better to just rip the bandaid off and move forward, so to speak. My biggest concern though, is the people who are getting fired....for example, are the ones close to retirement being taken care of, or is this unanticipated firing going to leave them with no pensions, health insurance, etc.? What about military spouses who are overseas and whose jobs on base keep them earning a paycheck while their spouses protect America and her interests? I wish this administration would consider a little more humaneness in their approach to RIFs."