DOGE Recap: June 2025
Tracking the Department of Government Efficiency
DOGE Recap: June 2025 (Sixth Monthly Report)
From Disruption to Embedding: A Month of Quiet Expansion and Rising Questions
June 2025 marked a transitional phase for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). With Elon Musk’s formal departure at the end of May and no clear successor appointed, DOGE entered its first full month without its founding architect. But while the media glare dimmed, the machinery of reform did not stop. Instead, DOGE initiatives became more embedded across federal agencies, with internal teams accelerating regulation rollbacks, data consolidation projects, and payment oversight regimes. Meanwhile, watchdog groups, journalists, and lawmakers began surfacing new concerns—about transparency, legality, and the scope of DOGE’s reach.
Operating Impacts: Embedded Teams, Gun Regulations, and Bureaucratic Disruption
Without public-facing leadership, DOGE staffers began working more discreetly inside key agencies. One place this became visible was at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), where a DOGE team was reportedly deployed in early June to assist in rewriting or eliminating up to 50 firearm regulations. According to Reuters, this internal directive was aimed at achieving major regulatory changes by July 4, a symbolic goal to free industry from government regulations. Legal experts warned that such rapid overhauls risk violating public comment and administrative due process norms.
Elsewhere, a Washington Post investigation found that DOGE, despite its mission of streamlining, may be inadvertently increasing operational burdens. Officials in 19 different agencies described added layers of approval, unclear chains of command, and conflicting directives as DOGE teams imposed new spending review systems without coordination. In some cases, agencies reported disruptions to essential functions, including grant disbursements, loan approvals, and internal travel logistics.
DOGE’s presence was also felt in IT and procurement systems. Over 500,000 government credit cards remained deactivated following May’s purge, and new agency procurement requests are being funneled through agency-specific systems under DOGE oversight. Staff at the Department of Education and HUD noted that delays in contract renewals had begun affecting field operations and local service delivery.
Financial Assessment: Budget Growth, Savings Claims, and Political Pushback
Despite public messaging around austerity, DOGE’s own budget footprint quietly expanded. Politico obtained internal documents showing the administration’s FY 2026 budget request includes a 68% staffing increase and raises DOGE’s annual budget to $45 million. Critics seized on the irony: a department created to shrink government now seeking growth, with no clear accountability framework in place.
At the same time, DOGE continued to cite lofty savings figures—now pegged around $190 billion. These claims were echoed by outgoing director Steve Davis in a June interview, but have not yet been validated by independent auditors.
Musk, now operating outside the government, publicly criticized the Senate spending bill as a “Big, Beautiful Bill” containing “pork-filled” earmarks. In a TIME Magazine piece, he suggested that Congress is undoing DOGE’s work before it’s even finished, calling for structural reforms to constrain future spending. Still, many lawmakers, including some Republicans, appear skeptical that executive-driven efficiencies can be sustained without legislative grounding or long-term fiscal discipline.
Legal Issues: Data Access Fights and Constitutional Red Flags
Legal concerns escalated as new revelations emerged about the scope of DOGE’s access to sensitive government databases. A Washington Post exposé detailed how Musk and DOGE staff had access to detailed personnel data across seven different agencies. This included identifiers like employment history, salary records, and possibly health benefit selections. While DOGE defended the access as essential for efficiency audits, watchdog groups raised alarms about data privacy, potential misuse, and the blurred lines between government and corporate interests.
In another flashpoint, some news groups reported lawsuits against DHS and DOGE, including one led by California and 20 state attorneys general (mostly Democrats) to block HHS from sharing Medicaid data with DHS and DOGE for immigration enforcement or “population surveillance.” New technology systems—developed with DOGE’s oversight—might combine DMV records, immigration status, and Social Security information into a single searchable registry. While the administration seeks to modernize its tools, privacy advocates warned such systems could be used for political targeting, surveillance, or future voter eligibility challenges.
New Theme: Declining Visibility, Rising Watchdog Activity
A subtle but important theme in June was DOGE’s shift from visible disruption to quiet embedding. With Musk no longer issuing weekly memos or hosting town halls, DOGE initiatives now roll forward through agency directives, interdepartmental task forces, and opaque data dashboards. This opacity has prompted new efforts by journalists and advocacy groups to track the department’s real impact.
Nonprofit-sponsored organizations like the Revolving Door Project and publications like WIRED have published critical reflections on DOGE’s leadership style and lasting governance implications. One former DOGE-aligned Veterans Affairs staffer described the project culture in these terms: “I think there wasn't really a ton of interest in understanding the federal government.” He went on to imply that the outcomes would be based less on efficiency and more on the entertaining nature of the accomplishments.
In June, Republican Senators Joni Ernst and Kevin Cramer, along with Representative Aaron Bean, introduced the “DOGE in Spending Act” to codify DOGE’s payment verification practices. This legislation mandates that each federal disbursement include details on the payment’s purpose, funding source, and activity type, certified annually and reported on USAspending.gov, aiming to enhance transparency and prevent fraudulent payments. The act focuses on institutionalizing DOGE’s efforts to track and justify federal spending, aligning with Executive Order 14222 (February 26, 2025), which requires agencies to build centralized systems for recording contract and grant payments.
On June 24, the House Oversight Committee held a “Locking in the DOGE Cuts: Ending Waste, Fraud, and Abuse for Good” hearing to review DOGE’s progress. The hearing emphasized that most DOGE-initiated reductions, such as personnel cuts and grant freezes, require Congressional action through appropriations bills to achieve actual savings, reinforcing the need for legislative grounding.
Conclusion: DOGE at a Crossroads of Visibility and Legitimacy
By the end of June, DOGE had clearly moved into a new phase—less flashy, more institutional, but also more legally vulnerable. Its fingerprints are increasingly found in loan approvals, procurement rules, data systems, and regulatory language. But the absence of clear leadership and transparent metrics raises doubts about whether this new model of government efficiency can sustain legitimacy.
The department’s defenders claim it’s laying the groundwork for a leaner, smarter federal system. Its critics argue it’s a cautionary tale of unchecked executive experimentation—fueled by Silicon Valley logic but governed without consent, process, or durable accountability. The July fireworks may bring more than a holiday this year—they may set off the next round of DOGE-related political maneuvering.
Notes:
The Common Sense Papers are an offering by Common Sense 250.
Vision: We aspire to transform U.S. politics through innovation and principled leadership.
Mission: We champion independent political reforms that improve the common good through the voice of the people for each generation. We support deliberative democracy and the use of citizens' assemblies to inform legislative decisions.
Purpose: To act and operate as a social welfare organization in improving the effectiveness of government, providing tools for a healthy democracy, and promoting social welfare by debating needed reforms for a civil society.
Guiding Principle: Centered on Citizens in Pursuit of Happiness
Previous DOGE recap reports:
January 2025 (First Monthly Report)
February 2025 (Second Monthly Report)
March 2025 (Third Monthly Report)
Joe, thanks for trying to shed an objective light on this. There needs to be full transparency and verification of what DOGE is actually doing and actually accomplishing or not, and the consequences. Typically, it is just the subject of propagandist spin either for or against it.
Maybe it's time to revisit some basics. Like who's supposed to do what now and under what authority overall within the federal government. I know some of that has been covered here but it seems like one questions and inflicts about these matters with respect to DOGE in particular. Congress enacts the laws and thereby establishes the various federal agencies and administrative departments. However these agencies and administrative departments are under the control and execution and implementation of the executive branch, ie the president and his cabinet and staff. The congressional "laws" are statutory and provide the sometimes broad brush elements of administration. However, the fact is, and everybody knows that the code of federal regulations (CFR) is much much larger than the United States Code (USC) statutes. So this means, de facto, that in practice the executive branch does more quasi legislative "law-making" activity than Congress. So this should imply that the executive branch can do anything within the letter of the governing statutes in carrying out and implementing the laws, managing the administrative agencies, etc. Obviously there's going to be room for disagreement on the meaning of those laws and that's probably about where we sit now. But the fundamental structure has been for Congress to legislate broadly and thereby delegate broadly to the executive. If they don't like it, perhaps they should take a hard look in the mirror and legislate more narrowly and delegate less.