Soon after the presidential election, TD Cowen rated the stock of defence and IT consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton a “buy”. At first glance, the bank’s assessment seemed strange: the Trump administration plans to scale down American involvement in Ukraine and the Middle East, likely resulting in reduced demand for Booz Allen’s services. But the reason for TD Cowen’s bullish outlook, as Business Insider explained, was that Booz Allen’s “capacity to manage the uncertainties associated with the new Administration’s DOGE initiative” would likely outweigh any foreign-policy headwinds the firm might face.
That analysis severely understates the case. In truth, the Department of Government Efficiency could be one of the biggest gifts that the consulting giants have received in decades. And if Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are not careful, these leaders of the DOGE experiment risk ensuring that the McKinseys and EYs of the world hamstring the very goals their new department was established for: finding savings for taxpayers and refocusing government on its most essential functions.
As Musk and Ramaswamy outlined in a recent op-ed, the DOGE exists to implement the rulings of two recent Supreme Court cases. Taken together, these rulings demand that judges no longer defer to executive agencies’ own interpretations of laws, while also denying the agencies the right to impose new regulations without specific authorisation from Congress. By recommending cuts in these in-house regulations to Trump, the pair plan to trim their headcount to only the numbers needed to implement those responsibilities authorised by Congress.
How much trimming might the DOGE be able to do? The current Federal headcount suggests quite a bit. Excluding active members of the military, it employs about 0.6% of the US population. That encompasses some two million Americans, scattered across 15 cabinet-level agencies and a range of other functions. Excluding defence, five of those agencies, including Treasury and Agriculture, employ 70,000 people or more. With Trump promising to bring back his “Schedule F” executive order, rescinded by Joe Biden, he may have the power to make deep cuts to the civil service starting early in his term.
Even with such a large workforce, the Federal government is already one of the consulting industry’s top clients, accounting for around $23.5 billion of the industry’s annual revenue. In practice, that represents some 30,000 projects, scattered everywhere from healthcare to infrastructure. Over time, many departments have come to rely on consulting as a sort of temp agency — increasing their labour force flexibility while permitting them to undertake projects far from the prying eyes of congressional oversight. The same can’t necessarily be said of foreign rivals like China: McKinsey, one of the CCP’s favourite foreign consulting firms, has also advised the Pentagon on its F-35 programme, while also providing management counsel to the Air Force and Space Force.
It is not unlikely that as the DOGE ramps up its promised headcount reductions in federal agencies, those agencies will increasingly fill the gap with consultants. It is just as likely that many of the same career civil servants cut from the Federal government via DOGE will wind up as consultants, working for McKinsey or Booz Allen, and covertly doing much the same work they were doing before. In its efforts to dismantle the so-called deep state, the administration may therefore inadvertently push the civil service into the arms of the private sector. The taxpayer would still foot the bill here, but that work would be paid for via consulting contract fees instead of government salaries.
Such a migration would be harmful for several reasons. First, it would thwart the incoming administration’s electoral mandate to reduce spending and roll back the scope of the state. Second, it would also push projects further away from the accountability of lawmakers and the executives, let alone the voters themselves. There’s also a national security dimension here. As Senators Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley showed in a recent report on McKinsey’s China portfolio, the spread of consultants could put even more privileged government information into the hands of firms that also work for our geopolitical adversaries. And while consulting firms swear by the information firewall they impose between projects, these promises are dubious when so much money changes hands.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt’s timely and welcome the Author drawing attention to increasing role such Consultancies have played last 30yrs and the degree of Grifting this generates. Has it delivered transformation for the vast majority – no. Has it made a small number v rich – yes. It has been the same in the UK.
The Article also highlights the complexity beneath the task set for Elon & Vivek. There are some real ‘hard yards’ that need doing here and I’m v sceptical they are truly up for that. Do this superficially and it’ll be a disaster. The two of them will be focused on a desire for association with some key headlines not the detail really needed. And if Elon is getting a bunch of the ‘unpaid’ onto it they’ll either have an alternative income that means a potential conflict of interest, or really not have the skills and experience to navigate this. It’s a cute headline but let’s see if anything of substance then realised. I fear the headline later will all be about the resistance of the deep state rather than a proper reflection they didn’t really ever want to do the hard yards and make the hard transparent calls.
This is not to contend that large state bureaucracies don’t have waste and don’t have the classic ‘self perpetuating’ motor that Max Weber first drew attention to over 100 years ago. But the fear here is we are about to enter a period of real corruption in US politics with the separation of powers in the US, long fought over, weakened by those with significant self interest. This DOGE stuff is thus all just a cover story.
It’s a stupid idea that will fail, much like all his other plans. If Trump was worth anything, his first term would have gone very differently.
I hope Musk and Ramaswamy are aware of the growing role of consultants and take this into account.
I hope they’re not Trojan horses using Trump to purposefully accomplish exactly what the author warns against and thereby increase their own power and influence, taking power from the old ruling class and transferring it to themselves. By controlling these organizations, shaping them according to their own political philosophies they could effectively usurp the power of the deep state towards their own ideological ends rather than that of the defeated globalist cabal, a hostile takeover of the bureaucracy.
Even if that’s the case, I suppose it’s still an improvement, relatively speaking. If all this bureaucracy is required, we may as well have a competent profit driven bureaucracy rather than a failed ideologically driven bureaucracy. I’m a cynical fellow, so I count any improvement as a blessing.
This is very relevant. The bureaucracy and costs do not stop at the state itself, it proliferates through the entire economy. Privatization and outsourcing of public services is a good way for a few people to enrich themselves, using crony constructs while keeping those who should be accountable out of sight for the voters.
And it is also bigger than simply government contractors, civil servants and public spending. After 2008 it was pretty clear who the true benefactors of the welfare state are. We only have to look at who was bailed out and who was not. Those responsible for 2008 were bailed out, using monetary tricks like quantitative easing. They have continued to do this throughout the 2010s and after the pandemic. This turned equity funds into behemoths that rival the GDP of nations, for example. It should not be forgotten that a lot of this speculative economy more or less runs on public money.
Using libertarian rhetoric to establish cronyism is something we have seen at least since Reagan. After all, he increased the national debt like no other and trickle down never happened. The question is then, what is different this time?
Cutting costs in the long term requires the activities that consume resources to be cut. These activities largely derive from laws and regulations imposed on the public sector to implement and regulate. This is a much bigger task than just cutting the funding. No doubt there are projects and activities that have not been sunsettef and should be stopped and are the low hanging fruit of a first wave of savings. After that it may need cutting regulations and the tax system for starters.
He makes some very good points, esp the last one.
Just show the DOGE the relevant episodes of Yes (Prime) Minister – which is most of them – maybe with some explanatory pointers when the systems diverge tooo much. The principles are universal though.
Does not the following quote from the article tell the entire story of the level of government waste? “Unsurprisingly, by the final year of Trump’s first term, 30% of confirmable Cabinet department positions remained vacant.” And yet, the government functioned well during those 4 years,
All that is needed to solve our financial mess is the same thing a captain of a massive ship does when it needs to change course on the sea. He doesn’t lurch to the port side in an instant. He merely changes course by a couple of degrees and over time the ship makes the turn. It took 30 years to get where we are and it might take 30 years to course correct.
If nothing changes, then nothing changes. Can anyone, including the author, explain what 70K people are doing at Dept of Agriculture? Or at the other four agencies with similar headcounts. One can easily point to the inverse relationship between spending at the Educ. Dept and student performance; the former has risen in almost perfect concert with the latter’s decline. No enterprise outside of govt would tolerate this.
Every plan involves tradeoffs and DOGE is not a likely exception. There are interests in Congress who already treat any reduction to rate of spending growth as a cut, and they can count on their media wing to amplify that lie.
Finally, there is this line that raises an obvious question that the author either did not consider or ignored: “by the final year of Trump’s first term, 30% of confirmable Cabinet department positions remained vacant.” Did anyone ever consider that this reality also means that this 30% of positions are not necessary since govt managed to get along without them?
It’ll go the same way as every other privatisation then, whereby services will continue to deteriorate but consultants will charge three times as much to do the same job they were doing before
“It is not unlikely that as the DOGE ramps up its promised headcount reductions in federal agencies, those agencies will increasingly fill the gap with consultants.”
This writer is clearly inside the tent and is unfamiliar with chainsaws.
Gaps, if there are any, need not be filled in and the use of consultants will be stopped on day one.
If you hear the chainsaw coming you are advised to duck!!!
The most efficient overhaul of the intelligence agencies would be for DOGE to recommend RIFing Gabard and having oversight conducted directly by the FSB.
It could be a gift to consultancy firms but it doesn’t have to be. The idea of DOGE is to terminate public service activity that is unnecessary or wasteful or duplicates something work being done elsewhere, etc. There is no reason to be cynical before the work starts although the way DOGE is structured is certainly not ideal.
I was one of those consultants and I can assure you that this analysis is correct. There are two other aspects not mentioned: As a consultant I cost the companies I worked at at least twice as much…. AND… Across the USA I found that there was no difference to be found between private or government organisations (I worked at some huge ones) in regards to the incompetence of their bloated middle management and bureaucratic processes. Size matters.
While this article, which I happen to favour, evokes a lot dull suits, Musk and Ramaswamy are this generation’s Intrepid Travelers without the LSD. I can see DOGE lending it’s services to cultural kinfolk like RFKJ, Tulsi Gabbard, Marty Makary and others. One can always enjoy the possibilities.
I have a sense that there’s a missing question here, which is how do we manage bureaucracies that have grown too big to be overseen by elected politicians?