Government salaries are such a small percentage (less than 5% is what I'm seeing in cursory searches) of spending that it doesnt make a lot of sense to me that DOGE was a genuine attempt at cutting spending. I work in defense, and at least a few times a year, I see government contract money that could pay a dozen salaries wasted on equipment that never even gets installed. We have a government bought tool that cost $2million 8 years ago, and we plug it in when senators come tour our facility so we can pretend we use it. If anyone in the government cared about reducing costs, I don't think they would care too much about payroll. Its the equivalent of taking all the appliances out of your house because your electric bill was $200 when you take home $5k.

I won't pretend to know what the actual motives were, but financial "efficiency" seems suspect to me.

> Why on earth would they need something as visible and aggressive as DOGE to extract data?

I think this is obvious. It was one of many goals, that aligned under an umbrella of activities. Asking for specific data creates a paper trail and triggers regulation. Restricting access, taking outright possession of hardware, and firing people along the way, helps shield the activity.

> Can't it simply be a case of aggressive and overoptimistic attempts to cut spending

aka "Aww shucks, we were just doin our best."

No rational organization would take many of the actions that were taken, if one of their primary goals was accountability. It was a smash and grab (disorganized would be fair to say), with an ad-hoc rationalization that was never reasoned.

>Why on earth would they need something as visible and aggressive as DOGE to extract data?

To hide the true purpose behind a curtain of "aggressive and overoptimistic attempts to cut spending".

No, because there is evidence DOGE did exfiltrate a vast amount of data, illegally, and gave it to Palantir and possibly others.

Maybe they were naive and useful idiots, but that doesn't just happen by accident.