Talk:Department of Government Efficiency

Is or was?

The article has been changed to speak of DOGE in the past tense ("was") to reflect the Reuters reporting that it "doesn't exist" anymore. Problem: that's not the whole story. This reporting by Nextgov states that the U.S. DOGE Service still exists, and that DOGE's goals "remain alive and well." DOGE is "more dispersed" according to Nextgov but not over. Fine Apples (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The news story stating that DOGE is closed was a hoax and some gullible individual added it to the lead. Jtrainor (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

How do you know the news story was a hoax? It's covered by two reliable sources in the lead section. Though, I do wish there could be more detail on the agency's shutdown in a seperate section. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC). Updated at 11:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Don’t act like the Trump administration and attack other users as “Gullible”

The content is from reliable sources and should be scrutinised for verifiably. ~2025-31531-99 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Reuters is a pretty darn Reliable Source. Exclusive: DOGE 'doesn't exist' with eight months left on its charter | Reuters Given what it says here, the quote about it

not being a centralised entity anymore, and the people running it being spread around other agency's, it'd seem that it doesn't exist as an actual government entity anymore. NextGov also points in that direction. The "DOGE ethos" still being a thing, but the entity not. This article is about the organisation, not about DOGE as a new MAGA term for austerity. So the past tense seems appropiate. MopperMijmer (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

DOGE still exist according to it's own offical website. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

you mean Doge.gov? Because I don't see a statement that they still exist, just a Twitter feed with the last post in August. The site is wonky in connection for me, but using the waybackmachine as well it seems to have been abandoned for a long time now. MopperMijmer (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Their website appears to have a display issue, as their most recent posts from Twitter are not showing up there. However, the account is still active, with their latest post made two days ago. (https://x.com/DOGE/status/1995996900563321228)

They also addressed the Reuters reporting. (https://x.com/DOGE/status/1993103250153738718)

Their most recent “contracts update” post was published six days ago. (https://x.com/DOGE/status/1994596926390419664) ~2025-38662-11 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree, I think we've heard this story before. I'd defer to NextGov reporting and the USDS website. I think adjusting to past tense probably doesn't address the fact that the temp-org created by the EO may have been ended, but the longer-term DOGE takeover of USDS hasn't. ~2025-36327-22 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd also defer to NextGov reporting here, since they're more likely to stay on this story longer and do deeper reporting. The structure and responsibility of DOGE has always been murky and complicated, and this is only compounds it. RolyPolyWombat (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

But what I read in the nextgov is "it appears it doesn't exist as an entity anymore, but nothing is clear. The mentality persists though". MopperMijmer (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

That DOGE isn't a real thing is more or less known since the feud between Trump and Musk:

https://www.wired.com/story/next-stage-doge-elon-musk/

The entity isn't required if everybody act as if it was a thing.

So we don't need to be too stringent on the necessity for the agency to exist. It never really existed anyway.

Another story that needs to be included:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/11/21/doge-elon-musk-succession-00641110

I've already asked the editor to move the lead. Tomorrow I will edit the page. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Selbstporträt: Newer reporting from Wired says "DOGE Isn’t Dead ... Contrary to popular reports, DOGE has 'burrowed into the agencies like ticks,' government sources tell WIRED."

https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-doge-doing-now/

Take a look. ~2025-36687-44 (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Selbstporträt (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The paragraph added to the lead should be a subsection somewhere.

Leads ought to mention what can be read in the text.

I could make the edit, but it might be better that the editor who did that to make the edits. Selbstporträt (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Selbstporträt (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The change was to edit and remove the "ding" sound as the page and website were still active. ~2026-28388-2 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Italic title

I am concerned by the fact that this article has an italic title when I think it shouldn't, unless there's something in the Manual of Style about italics I don't know about yet. Can someone please change the parameter that made this change to remove italicisation from the article's title? I'm just having too much difficulty finding that parameter, I thought it would be simple like a regular {{italictitle}} template or something related to the infobox. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done thanks to TSventon! Selbstporträt (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Doge is still active check their website and their x profile!

Ast post was January 10 please fix it so it is isn. ~2026-28388-2 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Selbstporträt (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Italic page title

At least for now, the page title has been changed to italic format. It needs to be restored to the non-italic format. Thank you. Cfls (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out! The reason italic titles keep coming back is because court case infoboxes are being added to the article without the proper parameter to suppress the italic title. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Wondered about that. Thanks for the explanation! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead citations

To comply with WP:Lead, I must state: There may be redundant citations in the lead. Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

You must state to comply with what exactly? Selbstporträt (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE is the specific section I am assuming you mean and as far as I'm aware that does not require a disclosure. It's not terrible that you warned us of citations in the lead, just unnecessary because editors will fix it if that needs to be done and information can be verified elsewhere. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

"Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." -WP:Lead Robloxguest3 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

"with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material" Selbstporträt (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

When the information in the lead is about a contentious topic, it is advised by the guidelines to include a higher than normal frequency of in-line citations in the lead.

Basically if it is information that many people may have a reason to doubt the Neutral point of view of, then in-line citations can be put in the lead more than you would find in other articles. Chattenoir (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

USAID - messing with the CIA is sure to make friends in DC

wikipedia sure doesn't like findng corruption ~2026-24651-98 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE does not require a disclosure that the lead may contain redundant citations. It asks editors to balance avoiding unnecessary citations against helping readers locate sources for challengeable material. Given that this is a contentious current-events article, I think some lead citations are appropriate for disputed, surprising, or high-impact claims, especially where readers are likely to challenge wording. That said, citations in the lead should still be selective, and material already well covered in the body does not need to be cited repeatedly unless there is a specific verification or neutrality reason. Sparks19923 (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:Lead

The recent lead rewrite reduced the article by about 14,000 bytes by removing excessive detail, duplicated background, and news-cycle material that belonged in the body rather than the lead. The previous lead was not fully compliant with WP:LEAD because it did not function as a concise summary of the article’s major points; instead, it included too much granular chronology, source-by-source controversy detail, and claims that were better handled with attribution in the relevant sections. The revised lead keeps the core points needed for readers to understand the topic: DOGE’s legal form, stated purpose, creation by executive order, disputed leadership, operational activity, savings controversy, criticism, and current status. This makes the lead more proportional to the article and closer to Wikipedia’s summary-style expectations. Sparks19923 (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The lead is indeed too long. The lead of good articles have between 250-400 words.

What happened to this editor is truly awful. AI fighters should learn about how LLMs work before brandishing their sword. Heck, they should learn about how editors work. Too many metapedians and not enough exopedians makes the wiki a dull place. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"The White House has insisted on the lawfulness"

Does WP:MANDY apply to noting the Trump White House's protest of DOGE's lawfulness against court holdings? The existence of court rulings rather implies that the administration defended the cases, doesn't it? ~2026-27607-47 (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"This essay previously stated that denials didn't have to be included. This is now considered to be a violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy." Selbstporträt (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)