Can the Trump 2.0 era deliver us from ineffective government bureaucracies?

Ever since the 2024 election handed Trump his numerically narrow but emotionally broad margin of victory, one of my favorite government thinkers and writers—Jennifer Pahlka, author of Recoding America—has been posting thoughts on her Substack about how this new Trump era might be an opportunity rather than a threat. Here’s her latest: Thoughts for inauguration day.

Pahlka has, rightly, pointed out the federal government in particular has become increasingly disconnected from the people, and it’s sclerotic policies and procedures are being used by elites to entrench their power at the expense of the broader public. Others have pointed out the populist revolt over the declining middle class has been weaponized by the Right to make a play for power, using techniques perfected by 20th century fascists. They pin the blame on anyone and everyone, starting with public servants in government, then immigrants, and so on.

Never let a crisis go to waste

Pahlka’s argument in favor of a Trump silver lining never resonated for me, but I couldn’t pin down what felt wrong about it. I wanted to believe. After all, I’m always the first in my professional circle to observe, “never let a crisis go to waste.” Why couldn’t we take the DOGE lemons and make a little lemonade along the way?

But I can’t keep singing from the same government effectiveness hymnal. Especially now that Trump has just destroyed the United States Digital Service (USDS), a vital team of technologists that Pahlka herself helped establish.

I absolutely agree things need to change in government (so many things!) and defending the status quo is no longer tenable, especially in the face of legal and technocratic systems that enable the desires of elites at the expense of the people. However, what we need—reforms aimed at outcomes and results, changes that bring rationality and human-scale judgment to actions across government—cannot possibly come from the chaos fomented by the new administration.

Dr. Musk’s chemotherapy?

In her post, Pahlka talks about her cancer treatments and shares thoughts on chemotherapy in particular. And I would agree chemotherapy is a great metaphor to explore, as it may illustrate how my fears have gone unaddressed in her post-election commentaries.

So the idea of chemotherapy is simple, even if the chemistry is complex. You introduce a stream of toxic agents into a complex biological system. Tuned well, these toxins will kill off cancer cells. But no matter how well tuned the toxins, it will also kill healthy cells. You simply hope that, on balance, more of the bad is wiped out than the good, and the good can rebuild over time.

But I would argue the second Trump era is not chemotherapy. The “DOGE” goal—now injected into the shell of USDS—is not creation of a carefully-designed and measured chemical cocktail, introduced in a controlled fashion into the government ecosystem (with supports in place in case the dosing is wrong or there’s an unexpected drug interaction). The “new USDS” will not aim for elimination of cancer cells and hope for reconstruction of healthy tissue. Trump’s goal is amputation of any part of government that stands in the way of oligarchic control, plus weaponization of the remaining parts to serve the desires of Trump and his super-rich supporters (Thiel, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk, and more billionaires in the Cabinet).

Survival vs. revival

I sense from the USDS attack and the DOGE “vibe” in general the best we can hope for is enough government survives to fight another day. Because asking career public servants to re-architect fundamental behaviors while under direct assault feels, well… unhelpful.

Like Biden’s post-Trump presidency, the bureaucracy will be in shock when Trump leaves (presuming he leaves). The survivors may not be in any mood to refocus on human-centered design and customer experience and rational, meaningful outcomes for ordinary Americans. They’ll have their hands full repairing the damage, if they can.

I want to believe those who take up the leadership of government post-Trump will have high-minded goals and the wherewithal to use the chaos to their advantage. But that’s a tall order.

Indeed, it’s a double-tall order because you would need unparalleled and unprecedented talent, vision, and energy to make a new government out of the rubble of the old government. Jennifer Pahlka and a handful of other geniuses created USDS in the wake of healthcare.gov‘s very public failure during the Obama administration. But that magical assemblage of talent would have to happen in every part of the federal government simultaneously. What are the odds of lightning striking so many times in so many places at once? (Not good.)

Additionally, this genius-level work would have to proceed under the watchful eye of a radically right-wing SCOTUS, who will likely fight any meaningful reforms inside agencies that don’t align with their politics. And striking down “rogue” agencies will be a walk in the park for them, since they already destroyed Chevron Deference.

Bone Saws-n-Cacophony

So I want to believe. I want to follow Pahlka’s logic—that this chaotic attack from Trump and Musk can be used for good; that this era might just kill off some cancers we’ve been suffering along the way. That would be amazing!

But I hear the DOGE bone saws being sharpened in the halls of USDS. It’s not a good sound. And neither Musk nor Trump strike me as pharmaceutical innovators, so there’s no chemo on offer.

I just don’t see how an administration hell-bent on revenge and the appeasement of one man’s narcissistic personality disorder will yield meaningful reforms for the good of the people the government was intended to serve.

Normally I cling to silver linings. But not today.