Comment by eecc

Trump tried to make DOGE, and was slapped down by congress, so he took an existing department, removed all the people, switched it to do a different job, moved it to a different state, and replaced its name.

It's not just a co-opt; it's a complete replacement. DOGE is in no sense USDC; it's just wearing its skin.

You need to find more reporting then. It's both, and more, and worse. The folks fired at DOE's NNSA were not exclusively probationary employees. DOGE doesn't even know the function of the departments they're eliminating. It's not evident they even know _what_ they're eliminating. See the "find and fire" approach to the word transitional. Oops... turns out that one's used in more than the context of gender.

Even firing all probationary employees explicitly _for cause_ when there's no evidence of performance problems with most of them is worse than random, it opens them up to legitimate legal backlash. Have you ever worked anywhere where the last two years of hires were all just completely worthless as employees? Of course not, that's basically impossible. Eliminating these people would have been harsh but understandable if it were said to be done for simple budget reasons, because yes they indeed are in a vulnerable less protected situation, but to call them all poor performers at the same time is worse than random, it's an obvious and transparent lie.

The people they fired at the VA weren't probationary and one of the first changes they made to the VA was removing gender identity from the account information.

This isn't about efficiency, money, or employees. It's about power and the consolidation thereof. They will have ransacked the VA and the American people not only gave them the keys but they cheered them on.

It's not just new hires. Employees who move to a new position, even if they've been in that agency for a long time, also have less protections and are being fired.

But as others have noted, these are not the only ones being mass fired.

Not just new hires, but also anyone who took a promotion or lateral move, which also puts them into a probationary period. So they're firing all the new employees and all the employees exceptional enough to be promoted or recruited to another department.

Not just new hires. They are firing people on "probationary" status, and people in civil service go through a brief probationary period after being promoted or moved to a new position.[1] This means some people being fired are long-time senior civil servants with expertise and knowledge. The reason they are firing probationary people is because they are easier to let go, by civil service rules.

I suspect the people in charge of the firings are under the same mistaken impression as you are, that all the probationary people are new hires who aren't yet essential. Witness the "oops, we fired the wrong people" rush to rehire.[2][3]

1 https://www.npr.org/2025/02/15/nx-s1-5298182/trumps-probatio...

2 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o

3 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/usda-accidentally-fire...

> It's not "at random". Every shuttered department had been investigating one of Elmo's properties...

¿Porque no los dos? Firing the folks that maintain nuclear weapons:

* https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-doge-firings-trump-federa...

Firing the folks dealing with bird flu:

* https://apnews.com/article/usda-firings-doge-bird-flu-trump-...

Also firing a whole bunch of folks at the FAA (including maintenance mechanics) even though it's already short staffed:

* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly9y1e1kpjo

Random and spiteful (?).

To add to hrow0101c's list

USAID was investigating Starlink

Consumer Protection Bureau has numerous investigations open vs Musky companies

Treasury is involved in regulating Muskys X for Finance thing

pseudo random then ?

[flagged]

I really wish I could still believe that last part.

> lose public support soon

Sooner than you think.

My tax refund is quite late.

Changing the rules so gov employees can be fired "at will" is an explicit goal of Project 2025

> No, the biases and incentives are different in government than in business

Not really, no. Certain cognitive biases and elements of self-interest are fundamental to all humans in all situations, and while different scenarios lead to those biases manifesting in different forms, they still share the same underlying substance.

> The main attraction of government work is the ability to serve your country, and to be rewarded by taking actions which produce (what you believe is) long-term social good.

No, the main attraction of government work is the ability to have a decently-paying career with a high degree of job security. Most people in such jobs simply dutifully do the tasks asked of them in exchange for a regular paycheck, and don't deeply consider the broader effects of their work on society (except to convince themselves of the importance of their work, as we all do).

A few outliers will prioritize theoretical ideals about doing "social good" over their own career goals, and a few outliers on the opposite end will prioritize having access to political power and opportunities for graft. (And some mistakenly think they are doing "social good" by forcefully advancing their own particular normative ideology.)

> Your belief that an adversarial relation between forces of government leads to a favorable equilibrium is indeed the basis of the US constitution, and the very thing which DOGE/Trump are attacking with such force.

No, I don't DOGE and Trump attacking the concept as much as participating in it here. None of the parties involved have good intentions, as far as I can evaluate, but, again, there's a chance that things will work out in the balance.

Not at all. Bureaucracy isn’t a flaw: it’s how governments function. Civil servants work, usually beyond politics, to keep society running -- from veterans’ healthcare to highway construction. That you, and others, may not realize that points to a really painful reality that people don't see democracy as participatory, but a spectator sport. Elected officials steer, but we -- those in the system -- propel it forward. Or in my case, have.

When systems fail, people step in to fix them. Sometimes, the failure is a person, and their supervisor or colleague is the safeguard. Replacing that with AI/ML is political offloading -- shifting responsibility from elected officials to code that can’t dissent, negotiate, or care. You’re lucky if it can even explain itself.

I know I’m on HN, where this isn’t the prevailing mindset. But public systems aren’t startups. They don’t get to fail. The common good isn’t about efficiency; it’s about endurance. It’s about ensuring society functions for everyone -- not just those with money, power, or influence. Public systems safeguard the commons, whether it’s infrastructure, social services, or even the basic principles of justice. They exist to serve not just the people you identify with, but those you ignore, fear, or even condemn. Bureaucracies, with all their flaws, aren’t meant to be efficient, they’re built to endure.

It’s HN, I can’t write a full abstract here. Of course, my view is full of assumptions, just as any general discussion of governance is. And dare I say, idealism too. Democracy itself is an ideal -- one that depends on human participation to exist at all.

> I don't think unelected bureaucrats should have more power than the elected leaders of the Executive.

It depends on which bureaucrats we're talking about. Most agencies are the creation of congress, and the executive should have minimal power over them. The president's job is to implement the laws of the legislature.

They don’t have more power. Whoever is telling you that has been lying to you, starting with the idea that these are lifetime jobs or lack accountability.

The American system of government is based on checks and balances between the branches. Congress passes laws which delegate some power and the Executive Branch implements them. In many cases, the high level positions are presidential nominees who are mutually agreed upon with the Congress and serve a set number of years or until recalled by one or both parties. Each agency has specific rules governing what they’re allowed to do and how they do it, as well as oversight and transparency for their actions.

What we’re seeing now is the conflict caused by Republicans deciding that following the law is too hard and creating conflicts with people who are following the law. When Musk was pushing people to grant access to restricted data, for example, it was proclaimed as disobedience but was simply that the people charged with protecting that data do not have person discretion in that matter: the operator of a SCIF knows they face heavy consequences if they allow unauthorized access. In all previous administrations, this hasn’t been a problem because people just waited a few weeks to get clearances.

Similarly, when Trump illegally tries to fire inspector generals it isn’t that there’s no way for him to do that, he just didn’t feel like giving Congress 30 days notice.

In all cases, the law is what matters: if there is a real disagreement about how one of the independent agencies operates, Congress can change it at any time and given the Republican majority it would not be hard for any reasonable change to be quickly enacted, at which point an agency head would be removed or even prosecuted if they fail to comply.

I don't think elected leaders in the executive branch should be allowed to supersede the role of the elected legislature in formulating public policy.

The whole problem can be sidestepped by pulling back on the excessive levels of discretion and rule-making that have been delegated to executive agencies in the first place.

The unelected bureaucrats should be responsible for upholding the Law and the mandates of their position, not to any individual or party. And the Law is set by Congress, not the Executive. The Law is enforced by the Judiciary, not the Executive. The whole point is to have an engine that can keep working and keep accumulating domain expertise regardless of which political party is in control, beholden to the Laws set by the Congress over time, representing all constituents over time, held responsible by the courts, and not the whims of any given administration (or, for that matter, any single Congress). The entire problem _is that_ we now have what may effectively be lifetime leaders being put into positions and _being told to ignore the law and their government issued mandates_.

And so much reeks of a Watergate like situation, except done publicly instead of in secret, with Congress and the Judiciary refusing or unable to hold any of these people to account. "We will now gather all information about our adversaries and fire anyone who doesn't give us the keys to the vaults, and if anybody doesn't like it, good luck, because the courts are going to be VERY busy, indefinitely, as we proceed to break every law the Legislature has issued, and is unlikely to have time to hear your case for a few decades."

But let's take at face value the idea that the Executive doesn't need to follow or even acknowledge the decisions of the Legislature, and that they can tell anyone to do anything whenever they feel like it. There's a pragmatic issue, not just a separation of powers issue: How can you possibly accumulate domain expertise, and what motivation would you have to accumulate that expertise anyway, when every agency is going to be dismantled every 2-4 years?

Besides, these bureaucrats are "elected" in a way similar to the Electoral College. We vote in the Legislature, and the Legislature votes on the appointments. If we don't want "lifers" then we should be voting on term-limits for these positions, not allowing the wholesale remodeling of our bureaucracy every election, where "just anybody" can come in and walk away with whatever they can loot each cycle.

It's not uncommon for some agency leaders to be replaced - particularly those dealing with policy-oriented matters, like say the FTC. But that doesn't apply to the rank-and-file because of various civil service reforms which are designed to provide continuity between administrations and avoid partisan flip-flopping of large numbers of employees. They were also designed to avoid corruption or the "selling" of government positions to those favored by the president, which was common back in the 1800s. Trump is taking us back towards greater corruption while disguising his acts in a cloak of "rooting out corruption".

Elon Musk is an unelected bureaucrat, as is all of the DOGE team.

Unelected bureaucrats don't have more power than the elected leaders of the Executive. The power to remove them arbitrarily is simply not a power that the leaders should have. Ideally, Trump's lifetime leaders in those agencies would have been installed by committee between both parties and so are apolitical whose sole focus is their job duties and serving the people, and can fight against the next Progressive president purely on that basis.

> governments and bureaucracies are inefficient in some way

Also, what's important to understand is that inefficiency in a corporation is a bug, but inefficiency in government is a feature.

Government needs to have checks and balances at every stage, which by definition is inefficient. Which in the case of government is a wonderful thing.

There is a word for a perfectly efficient government: dictatorship

Depends on how they weigh the cost of a false positive versus false negative decision. The former seems to often be the key focus of a bureaucracy, slowing down the rate of diffusion of new technologies even among willing adopters.

> Bureaucracy doesn't have to be to the detriment of society.

Bureaucracy is an organizational model that reflects human intentions and choices, just like every other organizational model in society.

Attributing specific moral inclinations to an organizational model is as absurd as attributing them to any other tool. Debating whether bureaucracies per se have good or bad intentions is as ridiculous as debating whether handwritten documents convey better or worse intentions than printed ones.

So far all of the bad things I've heard about our system, such as the economic unsustainability and now this, are effects that will happen in the perpetual future.

what you write is true, but very concerning.

in theory, laws and policies are crafted by elected officials or experts, and bureaucrats are just the executors. but in reality, bureaucracies interpret, refine, and sometimes even reshape these rules through policy implementation. this is where a lot of inefficiency, red tape, and unintended consequences creep in.

yours is a stability-over-change argument: bureaucracy exists to prevent reckless, harmful disruptions.

you're assuming the alternative to bureaucracy is reckless destruction, but what about the harm bureaucracy already causes? slow government processes, redundant approvals, and outdated rules waste time, money, and even lives. how many people suffer due to delays in healthcare, housing permits, or business licenses?

you're framing efficiency as 'reckless abandon' but efficiency doesn't mean chaos, it means designing systems that work smoothly without unnecessary friction. if private companies can process global transactions in seconds, why does it take months to approve basic permits?

if bureaucracy ensures stability, why does it fail so often? government shutdowns, dmv backlogs, and welfare mismanagement don’t scream 'zero downtime'. in reality, bureaucracy is often fragile, not resilient.

other industries use automation and streamlined processes to reduce friction without 'breaking things recklessly'. why should government be any different?

I work on software for government agencies. Some of the paperwork processes are absurd. There is a high number of people in leadership positions within government that push for processes and make software purchases that quite frankly have little to negative benefit. It is sad because I think government can be a force of good, but people are too busy spending effort on processes that don't matter. That leaves other work undone. An example is industry specific SAAS software that costs millions to pass documents around in the cloud, for a small group of users, which is no better than MS office solutions.

How about the AMA?

>Could you give a concrete example of what you're describing there?

Pick any pro-1984-esque smart city article that normal people would recoil in horror at the implications of yet HN generally endorses. The author is your example.

Now repeat for every industry and its own insane trends. Manufacturing people endorsing green regulation because they know it gives them a competitive advantage over their competition despite causing off shoring and making the world worse on the net. Lawyers, legislators and law people peddling inequality under the law but dressing it up as DEI. Lead people at regulatory agencies advocating for expansion of their own scope and mandate. Etc. etc. the list goes on.

It's like a stupid reverse gell-mann amnesia effect where people can spot stupidity outside their own industry but lack the ability to be a disciplined adult with self awareness and ability to see consequences when something benefits them.

But of course outsiders don't make decisions until things are so insane that the public weighs in so what happens is the tech industry peddles pervasive surveillance, manufacturing off-shores to countries that belch pollution, etc, etc, until it reaches a critical mass and a populist gets elected on promises to kill all of it no matter what it is.

If you want me to literally cite an example I'll do that but we all know that doesn't really matter because no example will satisfy everyone.