In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) and Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) voiced support for giving Cabinet secretaries a more significant role in implementing efficiency reforms recommended by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The two lawmakers shared their views during separate interviews on NewsNation’s “The Hill” on Monday, highlighting a shared belief that while Elon Musk’s efforts to cut waste are valuable, decisions about employees and agency operations should ultimately be made by department leaders.
DOGE: A Resource, Not a Command Center
Both lawmakers acknowledged the value of DOGE’s work but stressed that the agency should function as an advisory body rather than a central authority for managing federal departments.
“Secretaries run their departments. DOGE, while very helpful, should be viewed as a resource, not the operating system for the entire federal government,” said Rep. Warren Davidson.
Davidson pointed to DOGE’s scrutiny of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as a positive example.
He praised Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s leadership in scaling down the agency’s operations based on DOGE’s recommendations, demonstrating how cabinet-level officials can effectively implement reforms.
Musk’s Controversial Email Directive Sparks Confusion
The debate over DOGE’s role intensified following a controversial move by Elon Musk. Over the weekend, Musk directed federal employees to submit a list of five accomplishments from the previous week by 11:59 p.m. EDT on Monday. He warned that failure to respond would be considered a resignation.
However, confusion quickly followed:
- Several federal departments instructed employees not to respond to the email.
- The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) clarified on Monday that responses were voluntary and noncompliance would not result in termination.
Despite the OPM’s guidance, Musk doubled down on his position, stating employees who failed to respond would be given “another chance” before facing termination.
Bipartisan Reaction: Efficiency vs. Overreach
Davidson defended Musk’s approach as a potential tool for identifying inefficiencies:
“Sending that email can be a useful tool to expose layers of management that might not be necessary or to see which employees are underperforming.”
However, he also questioned the practicality of the directive:
“Unless you’ve really built the architecture out, there’s no way to read that many emails. So why are we doing this?”
In contrast, Rep. Ami Bera criticized the move as counterproductive and unprofessional:
“The email approach was somewhat sophomoric. That’s not the way you go about justifying someone’s job.”
Bera emphasized that Cabinet secretaries should be responsible for determining which programs should be downsized or eliminated, as they are more familiar with the specific needs and priorities of their agencies.
Cabinet Secretaries Should Lead the Charge
Both lawmakers agreed that any downsizing of federal programs should be overseen by Cabinet secretaries, not imposed top-down by DOGE or Musk directly.
- Davidson suggested that Musk should collaborate with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and route DOGE’s recommendations through secretaries to ensure practical and informed decision-making.
- Bera stressed the importance of involving Congress in the process to ensure that any downsizing efforts are supported by legislation and bipartisan consensus.
“I’m not here arguing that there isn’t some waste, that there aren’t inefficient programs. But work with us,” Bera said. “Modernize government, make it work better and more efficiently for the American people.”
