DOGE is done. What happened to its records?
342 points
• 4 days ago
• Article
Link
Department of Government Efficiency（简称 DOGE）已正式结束运作，该部门曾主导对联邦政府的一次大规模重组。但尽管其影响深远，目前并没有关于具体措施、节省成本或内部决策的公开账目。 Trump administration 一直在积极隐瞒这些记录，这也令人担忧像 Elon Musk 这样的私人个体如何能够影响政府职能这一问题的透明度。
政府为保护这些文件所采取的做法，是把 DOGE 归类为咨询机构而非独立机构。官员们据此主张 DOGE 不受 Freedom of Information Act 的约束，而其记录应适用 Presidential Records Act 。这一分类有效把公众获取信息的时间至少推迟到政府离任后五年，造成事实上的信息真空，使公众无法核实其实际所为。
迹象显示，DOGE 的数字痕迹正在被清除。有报道称包括 National Labor Relations Board 在内的联邦机构已删除了 DOGE 团队的账户，这可能危及针对举报人投诉的正在进行的调查。此类销毁行为可能违反要求保存政府档案的 Federal Records Act 。通过破坏像 FOIA requests 这样的传统透明机制，政府几乎切断了公众了解这场行政整顿实际程度的渠道。
局势因政府最近关于总统记录性质的法律主张而更加复杂。 Justice Department 的一份备忘录提出，Presidential Records Act 本身可能违宪，暗示总统文件属于私人财产而非公共资产。这一激进的政策转向为政府任意销毁或扣留信息提供了法律依据。尽管目前已有诉讼试图反对这一立场并保全记录，政府已表明将上诉，令政府透明度的前景更加不确定。
围绕 DOGE 的透明度缺失，反映出一场更广泛、协同行动的努力——削弱政府问责制。从撤换独立监察长到强制签署限制性保密协议，这些举措都使公众无法看清政府内部运作。批评者担忧，DOGE 的做法把权力外包给私人利益的同时又摧毁审计这些决策的能力，会为未来将私人影响置于民主监督之上的治理模式开创危险先例。
The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has officially concluded its operations after leading a sweeping restructuring of the federal government. Despite the initiative's significant impact, there is currently no public accounting of its specific actions, cost savings, or internal decisions. The Trump administration has actively worked to keep these records hidden, raising concerns about a lack of transparency regarding how a private figure like Elon Musk was able to influence government functions.
The administration's strategy for shielding these documents is rooted in the classification of DOGE as an advisory body rather than an independent agency. By labeling it this way, officials argue that DOGE is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, which would typically allow for public oversight. Instead, they contend its records fall under the Presidential Records Act. This classification effectively delays public access for at least five years after the administration leaves office, creating a functional blackout that prevents the public from verifying what was actually done.
Evidence suggests that the digital footprint of DOGE is already being erased. Reports indicate that federal agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, have deleted DOGE team accounts, potentially compromising ongoing investigations into whistleblower complaints. This destruction of records may violate the Federal Records Act, which requires the preservation of government files. By sabotaging traditional transparency mechanisms like FOIA requests, the administration has left the public with little recourse to understand the extent of the administrative overhaul.
The situation is further complicated by the administration's recent legal assertions regarding the nature of presidential records. A Justice Department memo has floated the idea that the Presidential Records Act itself is unconstitutional, suggesting that presidential papers are private property rather than public assets. This radical shift in policy provides a legal framework for the administration to destroy or withhold information at will. While legal battles are currently underway to contest this stance and preserve records, the administration has signaled its intent to appeal, leaving the future of government transparency in a state of limbo.
Ultimately, the lack of transparency surrounding DOGE highlights a broader, coordinated effort to dismantle government accountability. From the removal of independent inspectors general to the imposition of restrictive nondisclosure agreements, these actions blind the public to the inner workings of their government. The concern among critics is that the DOGE model, which outsources power to private interests while destroying the ability to audit those decisions, sets a dangerous precedent for future governance that prioritizes private influence over democratic oversight.
297 comments • Comments Link
DOGE 已经撤销了 NIH 中负责处理大型补助金的关键岗位，导致研究资助严重延误。这给依赖软性经费的机构造成危机，迫使研究人员把更多时间花在申请补助上、减少了用于科研的时间，实际上加剧了该倡议本应解决的效率问题。
该倡议被广泛视为不为提升政府绩效而设，而是变相掠夺政府数据、谋取私利并打压体制内异己。许多观察者将其形容为一种"创业公司式"的混乱颠覆，完全忽视了非营利性政府部门的运作现实。
那些声称联邦政府普遍浪费的假设，受到了具有系统内直接经验人士的质疑。批评者指出，许多项目是必要的，所谓"浪费"常被用作削减受欢迎或重要服务的借口。该倡议被形容为一次拙劣的削成本尝试，不但未能实现实质性节支，反而带来了更高的系统性风险和更多延误。
联邦支出中的明显低效往往源自私营承包体系，而非政府官僚主义。承包商常通过多层分包和中间商抬高商品价格并造成服务重复，这表明真正的改革应加强对私营供应商的监管，而不是简单解雇公务员。
对诸如失败的 OCX initiative 等"大爆炸式"一次性替换项目的依赖，证明了在未进行渐进原位升级的情况下推行大规模 IT 重构的风险。这类失败常因公务员缺乏质疑承包商不当行为的权力，再加上把项目当作特定选区事实性就业计划来资助的政治体制，两者结合导致了失败。
把政府部门完全照搬营利企业的运作模式，忽视了两者使命上的根本差别。企业以利润为先，而政府必须承担复杂的社会责任——从国家安全到粮食补贴再到科学研究——在这些领域，成效不能用收入指标来衡量。
该倡议缺乏透明度是主要担忧之一。有人主张设立真正的、无党派的 Department of Government Transparency，利用公共数据集让公众审计支出，而不是采纳该倡议领导层偏好的那种不透明、凭"氛围"的做法。
在政府公务中广泛使用 Signal 等即时通讯工具，正在危险地侵蚀机构记录。批评者认为，这种透明度和问责的缺失是对民主程序的直接攻击，因为它妨碍了监督并向公众隐瞒了政策变动的真实影响。
讨论中出现的一个显著论点是 Chesterton's Fence：在移除所谓低效环节之前，必须先弄清这些流程最初存在的理由。在没有深入分析其功能的情况下解雇资深人员，必然会导致关键机构记忆的流失和运行失灵。
该倡议的最终遗产被视为对政府职能的"撕裂"：受损的机构与缺失的记录将妨碍未来政府运作。有人认为，这是一种使治理更为艰难的策略，可能在未来多年内导致政治动荡和公共服务失灵。
讨论中的共识是：该倡议更多是表面演出且规划糟糕，不仅未能实现财政目标，还造成系统性损害。与会者普遍承认政府在 IT 现代化、承包商过度开支和流程低效方面存在真实问题，但反对这种"全部烧掉"的做法，认为它破坏性强、缺乏诚意、以牺牲关键专业知识为代价。总体情绪显示深切担忧：机构记忆流失、数据被破坏、专业能力被激进拆除，已严重削弱政府代表公民履职的能力。 • The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has dismantled critical NIH staff roles responsible for processing high-scoring grants, leading to severe delays in research funding. This creates a crisis for institutions reliant on "soft money," forcing researchers to dedicate more time to grant writing and less to scientific discovery, effectively worsening the efficiency problems the initiative claimed to solve.
• The initiative is widely viewed not as a genuine effort to improve government performance, but as a mechanism for looting government data, extracting private gains, and punishing institutional enemies. Many observers argue the project functioned as a "startup-style" chaotic disruption that ignored the operational realities of non-revenue-generating government sectors.
• The assumption that the federal government was plagued by rampant waste is challenged by those with direct experience in the system. Critics argue that many programs are essential and that "waste" is often a label applied to justify cuts to popular or functional services. Instead of finding meaningful savings, the project is described as an incompetent attempt to cut costs that resulted in higher systemic risks and delays.
• Significant inefficiency in federal spending is often attributed to private-sector contracts rather than government bureaucracy. Contractors frequently insert multiple layers of subcontractors and middlemen, leading to overpriced goods and redundant services, which suggests that genuine reform would require stricter oversight of private vendors rather than firing civil servants.
• The reliance on "big bang" replacement projects, such as the failed OCX initiative, demonstrates the pitfalls of attempting large-scale IT overhauls without incremental, in-place upgrades. These failures are often driven by a lack of empowerment for civil servants to challenge contractor grift, combined with a political system that favors funding projects as de facto jobs programs in specific legislative districts.
• Attempting to run government departments strictly like for-profit corporations ignores the fundamental difference in mandates. While businesses prioritize profit, government agencies must manage complex societal responsibilities, including national security, food subsidies, and scientific research, where success cannot be measured by revenue metrics.
• The lack of transparency regarding the initiative's activities is a major concern. There is an argument for creating a genuine, non-partisan "Department of Government Transparency" that uses public datasets to allow citizens to audit spending, rather than the opaque, "vibes-based" approach favored by the initiative's leadership.
• The widespread use of ephemeral communication tools like Signal to conduct government business represents a dangerous erosion of institutional records. This lack of transparency and accountability is seen by critics as a direct assault on the democratic process, as it prevents oversight and hides the true impact of policy changes from the public.
• A notable pattern in the discussion is the "Chesterton's Fence" argument: before removing perceived inefficiencies, one must understand why those processes were established in the first place. Dismissing experienced staff without a deep analysis of their function invariably leads to the loss of critical institutional knowledge and operational failure.
• The ultimate legacy of this initiative is perceived as a "sundering" of government function, where damaged institutions and missing records will handicap future administrations. This is described as a strategy that makes governing difficult, potentially ensuring political volatility and the failure of public services for years to come.
The consensus within the discussion is that the initiative was a performative, poorly planned effort that caused systemic harm while failing to achieve its stated fiscal goals. Participants largely agree that the government faces real challenges regarding IT modernization, contractor overspending, and process inefficiencies, but they reject the "burn it down" approach as a destructive, bad-faith effort that sacrificed critical expertise. The overarching sentiment reflects a deep concern that the loss of institutional memory, the destruction of data, and the aggressive dismantling of expertise have significantly degraded the government's ability to function on behalf of its citizens.