Talk:Department of Government Efficiency

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Department of Government Efficiency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article: This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days) Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The content of United States DOGE Service was merged into Department of Government Efficiency on February 26, 2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Conservatism High‑importance Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics High‑importance Economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American High‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Government Mid‑importance United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

Other talk page banners

Edward Coristine was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 February 2025 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Department of Government Efficiency. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. Gavin Kliger was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 February 2025 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Department of Government Efficiency. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. Ethan Shaotran was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 February 2025 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Department of Government Efficiency. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. Gautier Cole Killian was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 February 2025 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Department of Government Efficiency. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. List of documents released by the Department of Government Efficiency was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 February 2025 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Department of Government Efficiency. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Department of Government Efficiency (oldid, history) → Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government (diff) on 2/20/2025 Copied Department of Government Efficiency (oldid, history) → Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal goverment (diff) on 2/20/2025 Copied Department of Government Efficiency (oldid, history) → United States Federal government targets of Elon Musk (diff) on 2/20/2025

Former DOGE employees

search "Former DOGE employee" "DOGE workers quit"

Network of the Department of Government Efficiency

make a section about exit interviews of fired or quit ex-employees in the news? for example:

Edward Coristine

Sahil Lavingia

D.K.

Merici Vinton

Piñanana (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Busy with other pages, but will try to get to it next week. If not, ping me. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Selbsportrait (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Network of the Department of Government Efficiency for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Network of the Department of Government Efficiency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of the Department of Government Efficiency until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Selbsportrait (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Selbsportrait (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "During his speech to a join session of Congress," to " During his speech to a joint session of Congress," 2601:42:0:51C0:2ABC:4285:F7C0:4C8C (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done meamemg (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the very end of the section "Savings announcement" to read the following:

DOGE reported approximately $660 million in savings from lease cancellations and non-renewals nationwide as of March 2025. Researchers estimate that lease cancellations in Washington, D.C. alone generated office property value losses of $575 million, with another $51 million in forecasted lost commercial property tax revenues over the next five years. Compared to the $76 million in savings for D.C. reported on the DOGE website as of mid-March 2025, the cancellations fail a simple cost-benefit analysis.

The source for these numbers is:

Choi, Soon Hyeok; LaPoint, Cameron (June 28, 2025). "Pricing Government Contract Risk Premia: Evidence from the 2025 Federal Lease Terminations." SSRN. Keizaiwiz (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the source returns a 404 error; could you please provide the correct link? Day Creature (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needed an underscore in the link, try "Pricing Government Contract Risk Premia: Evidence from the 2025 Federal Lease Terminations". LizardJr8 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to help with this, but I see several potential issues and also bit of a problem with verification. I will cut your edit into pieces that I can ask questions about separately.

1) ‘DOGE reported approximately $660 million in savings from lease cancellations and non-renewals nationwide as of March 2025.’ -this is a purely factual statement (saying what DOGE reported) and could be verified easily. But it would help if you could provide page numbers so that I (or readers) could easily find where in the 88-page document to find what DOGE reported.

2) ‘Researchers estimate that lease cancellations in Washington, D.C. alone generated office property value losses of $575 million, ‘ - similar to 1. Should be easy to verify what the researcher in the paper estimates with a page number. (In this case it’s easily found in the abstract, page 1 and throughout the article and conclusion)

3) ‘with another $51 million in forecasted lost commercial property tax revenues over the next five years.’ (This can be found in the introduction and toward the end of chapter 7)

4) ‘Compared to the $76 million in savings for D.C. reported on the DOGE website as of mid-March 2025, ‘ - here I need some help as in 1). I don’t see this very clearly in the article)

5) ‘the cancellations fail a simple cost-benefit analysis.’ - this part I have the most issue with. I can’t tell if this is your opinion/conclusion or that of the researchers. It reads to me like editorialising, which we aren’t allowed to do. If this is a statement made by the researcher, it can be allowed but I think we would need to (more) clearly cite or paraphrase them.

Slomo666 (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. I added your text, minus the forecast bit - seems in the weeds.

 Done Selbsportrait (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Alexander Simonpour" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alexander Simonpour has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10 § Alexander Simonpour until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]