New State-Level Departments of Government Efficiency; Politicians Desperately Clinging to Control

U.S.A. – Across the country, a new initiative is being proposed: the creation of State Departments of Government Efficiency (DOGE), dedicated to eliminating waste, modernizing government operations, and ensuring taxpayer funds are spent responsibly. Unlike previous reform efforts that were often bogged down by political interference, these new departments should be designed to operate independently—without politicians selecting members or influencing decisions.

Concerns Over Kentucky’s Politicized Approach to DOGE

Recently, Kentucky lawmakers have introduced legislation to create a state-level Department of Government Efficiency. However, rather than adopting a nonpartisan, independent structure, Kentucky’s plan places politicians at the helm of the selection process, raising concerns over conflicts of interest and the potential for politically motivated decision-making.

Legislation to create a Kentucky version of the federal government’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk, has been introduced by Sen. Lindsey Tichenor, R-Smithfield, allegedly to enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of Kentucky’s state government. The task force would include 10 members. The House Speaker would appoint four members, the Senate President would nominate four members and the minority leaders from each chamber would each appoint one member. However, many say that it’s nothing more than the ‘foxes’ trying to establish themselves as the ‘guards’ of the hen house. No one really believes that politicians would willingly choose people that would thwart their political plans and agendas.

Critics argue that allowing politicians to select and oversee members of a government efficiency board defeats the purpose of unbiased reform. “The moment politicians gain control over an oversight body meant to hold government accountable, it turns into another tool for partisan maneuvering rather than an instrument of efficiency,” said a policy analyst from the Center for Public Integrity.

Kentucky’s approach also lacks the necessary safeguards to prevent political favoritism and interference in hiring decisions, audits, and efficiency recommendations. Experts warn that a politically controlled DOGE could lead to selective investigations, where wasteful programs aligned with certain political interests remain untouched while opponents face scrutiny.

For a State Department of Government Efficiency to succeed, it must be free from political influence, with appointments made through nonpartisan panels rather than legislative or executive appointments. As other states consider similar proposals, Kentucky serves as a cautionary tale of why politicians should not be involved in selecting members of an efficiency board.

A Nonpartisan Approach to Efficiency

The cornerstone of these proposed state-level departments is their independence from political influence. Unlike traditional government oversight agencies, which often face pressure from governors, legislatures, or political appointees, the State Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) should be staffed exclusively by nonpartisan professionals with expertise in auditing, technology modernization, ethics, and law.

“The key to real reform is to keep politicians out of the selection process,” said a government accountability expert from the National Institute for Public Integrity. “Historically, government efficiency projects have been hamstrung by political interference, favoritism, and an unwillingness to address waste when it benefits politically connected groups. This model should change that.”

How Candidates Should Be Selected

To ensure neutrality and effectiveness, each state’s DOGE should use a structured, multi-phase selection process to appoint a team that includes:

• An Independent Auditor to identify financial waste and inefficiencies.
• A Government Efficiency Expert to streamline operations.
• A Technology and Governance Professional to modernize state IT infrastructure and prevent fraud.
• An Ethics and Legal Specialist to ensure all actions comply with law and public trust.

Each member should be chosen through a rigorous vetting process, including bias-detection psychological assessments, structured interviews, and peer reviews by nonpartisan experts. The focus should be on technical expertise, ethics, and a demonstrated ability to operate without ideological bias.

Excluding Politicians to Prevent Sabotage

A critical design feature of these new agencies should be the explicit exclusion of politicians from the selection and oversight processes. This is meant to prevent political sabotage, where members are chosen based on loyalty rather than competence.

“There is an undeniable conflict of interest when politicians select government efficiency teams,” said an independent policy analyst. “If a government agency is wasting taxpayer money on politically connected projects, politicians often have an incentive to protect that waste rather than eliminate it.”

To prevent this:

• All candidates should be selected by a nonpartisan oversight panel composed of experts from outside the political system.
• Governors and legislatures should have no direct authority over hiring, term limits, or removal of DOGE members.
• A supermajority (e.g., two-thirds) approval should be required to make any changes to DOGE leadership, preventing political purges.
• Regular audits should ensure transparency and prevent ideological bias from creeping in.

Reevaluating Sources for DOGE Oversight

Given the recent failures of State Auditor’s Offices, Inspectors General, Budget Offices, and Legislative Audit Committees—as exposed by DOGE investigations—it is necessary to reconsider their role in providing oversight. These agencies, once thought to be impartial and effective, have demonstrated weaknesses in detecting and addressing inefficiencies within state governments.

Reports have revealed instances where state oversight agencies have either overlooked systemic financial mismanagement or failed to act decisively due to political pressure. This raises concerns about their suitability as sources for DOGE selection panels.

Instead, DOGE should focus on recruiting from truly independent watchdog organizations, private-sector audit firms with no government ties, and ethics bodies that have proven records of impartial investigations. By restructuring the oversight framework, DOGE can ensure that self-serving bureaucratic institutions do not undermine its mission.

State-Level Implementation and Oversight

Each DOGE should operate under strict transparency guidelines, requiring:

• Public disclosure of findings related to wasteful spending and inefficiencies.
• Annual efficiency audits conducted by external agencies.
• Fixed-term leadership rotations (2–4 years) to prevent long-term political entrenchment.
• Whistleblower protections to encourage reports of corruption and misuse of funds.

Overcoming Political Resistance

Despite its clear benefits, the initiative is expected to face resistance from political figures who benefit from the status quo. Some lawmakers have expressed concern that removing politicians from the selection process could weaken “democratic oversight.” However, supporters argue that real democratic oversight comes from transparency and accountability, not from politically motivated interference.

“This is not about weakening democracy—it’s about strengthening it by making sure the government operates efficiently and ethically,” said a policy expert. “Politicians should be making policy, not micromanaging the people whose job it is to ensure government functions efficiently.”

The Future of Government Reform

If implemented, these State Departments of Government Efficiency could serve as a national model, proving that modernization, waste reduction, and ethical governance are achievable when politics is removed from the equation.

With several states considering legislation to create these independent oversight bodies, it is crucial to push for reforms that ensure governments finally serve the people, rather than entrenched political interests.