President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, represents the latest in a long line of ambitious attempts to streamline the U.S. federal government and address fiscal inefficiencies. While the symbolic aspects of DOGE—its internet meme-inspired acronym and high-profile leadership—signal a modern approach to government reform, the initiative bears striking similarities to previous efforts, notably the Keep Commission under President Theodore Roosevelt, the Grace Commission under President Ronald Reagan, and the National Partnership for Reinventing Government under President Bill Clinton. These historical examples provide a cautionary tale about the limitations of advisory commissions in achieving meaningful reform in a system rife with entrenched interests.

President Theodore Roosevelt’s Committee on Department Methods, more commonly known as the Keep Commission, was established in 1905. Its mandate was to increase efficiency within federal agencies, reduce waste, and improve coordination among departments. Roosevelt, a progressive reformer, was deeply committed to modernizing the federal government and sought to professionalize its operations.

The Keep Commission produced detailed reports on inefficiencies and made several recommendations for streamlining government operations. However, despite its good intentions, its actual impact was modest. Bureaucratic inertia and resistance from established agencies limited its effectiveness. The Keep Commission’s recommendations often lacked the political will and institutional power to enforce change.

Nearly eight decades later, President Ronald Reagan launched the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, commonly known as the Grace Commission. Chaired by industrialist J. Peter Grace, the commission was tasked with identifying ways to reduce waste, improve efficiency, and limit the growth of federal spending.

The Grace Commission was emblematic of Reagan’s small-government philosophy and his promise to “get government off the backs of the people.” Over two years, it produced a comprehensive report identifying 2,478 recommendations that, if implemented, were projected to save $424 billion over three years. Key proposals included streamlining the federal workforce, eliminating unnecessary programs, and reforming entitlement spending.

However, despite the fanfare surrounding its creation, the Grace Commission had little lasting impact. Congress ignored the majority of its recommendations, and the political realities of maintaining popular programs, combined with Reagan’s own prioritization of tax cuts and defense spending, undermined any significant reductions in government size or debt. Instead of shrinking, the federal government grew during Reagan’s tenure, and the national debt tripled from $908 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion by 1988.

The failure of the Grace Commission is emblematic of a broader contradiction in Reagan’s presidency; the rhetoric of small government clashed with the realities of deficit spending and debt accumulation. While Reagan succeeded in cutting taxes and implementing deregulation, his administration presided over an unprecedented expansion of military spending, which, coupled with an unwillingness to make deep cuts to entitlement programs, resulted in soaring deficits.

Despite promises to curb the size of government, the federal workforce remained largely unchanged during Reagan’s presidency, and new layers of bureaucracy were added. The government’s ability to reduce inefficiencies was further hampered by political compromises and the entrenched interests of lawmakers, lobbyists, and federal employees.

In 1993, during the Clinton administration, Vice President Al Gore launched the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR), initially called the National Performance Review. Its aim was to “create a government that works better and costs less,” by streamlining processes, leveraging technology, and adopting private-sector practices to improve the efficiency of government services. Key initiatives included reducing red tape, consolidating overlapping programs, and empowering federal employees to make decisions without excessive bureaucratic oversight.

However, while the NPR claimed to save taxpayers $137 billion over six years, through initiatives such as procurement reform and improved financial management, and the federal workforce was reduced by over 350,000 employees, largely through attrition and early retirements, the NPR faced the familiar criticisms and limitations. For example, while some processes were streamlined, these surface-level inefficiencies left intact the deeper structural issues. And, of course, many of Gore’s proposed reforms that would have addressed them, such as eliminating outdated programs or privatizing certain functions, faced resistance from Congress and vested interests—and without broad political support, these most ambitious goals went unrealized.

Under Donald Trump, the Department of Government Efficiency faces many of the same challenges that hindered the Keep and Grace Commissions and the NPR. While Musk and Ramaswamy’s high-profile leadership may bring fresh attention to the issue of government inefficiency, several factors suggest that DOGE’s potential impact will be limited.

1. Lack of enforcement power. Like its predecessors, DOGE is an advisory body without statutory authority. Its recommendations will be non-binding, and will require congressional approval to enact meaningful reforms. Given the deep polarization in Congress and the entrenched power of special interests, achieving consensus on major cuts or consolidations will be exceedingly difficult.
2. Entrenched interests. Federal agencies, employees, and contractors are deeply invested in maintaining the status quo. Efforts to streamline government or eliminate redundancies often face fierce resistance from bureaucracies, unions, and lawmakers whose districts benefit from federal spending.
3. Political realities. Proposals to abolish agencies or dramatically reduce the federal workforce, as Musk and Ramaswamy have suggested, are likely to provoke significant political backlash. Popular programs and services, even if inefficient, have strong constituencies that will mobilize to defend them.
4. Symbolism over substance. The DOGE’s playful acronym and connection to Musk’s entrepreneurial ethos may generate media attention, but it risks being dismissed as a gimmick rather than a serious reform effort. Critics may question whether the commission’s high-profile leaders have the expertise or political savvy to navigate the complexities of federal governance.

The repeated failure of government reform initiatives like the Keep and Grace Commissions and the NPR—and likely DOGE—underscores a fundamental tension in American governance. The federal government’s sprawling bureaucracy, while often inefficient, is deeply entrenched in the fabric of the nation’s economy and society. Attempts to reduce its size or scope face structural obstacles, including:

1. Congressional incentives. Lawmakers often prioritize short-term political gains over long-term efficiency, supporting programs that benefit their constituents regardless of cost.
2. Fragmentation. The sheer size and complexity of the federal government make comprehensive reform daunting, with agencies often operating in silos resistant to coordination or oversight.
3. Public expectations. Americans expect a wide array of services from their government, from Social Security and Medicare to national defense and disaster relief, making significant cuts politically unpalatable.

If DOGE is to succeed where its predecessors failed, it will need to address these structural challenges directly. This may require:

1. Building bipartisan coalitions to support specific reforms.
2. Engaging the public in a conversation about the trade-offs between government services and fiscal responsibility.
3. Prioritizing reforms that can achieve broad consensus, such as improving procurement practices or reducing administrative overhead.

Ultimately, however, the success of any government reform effort depends on political will. Without a sustained commitment from the president, Congress, and the public, even the most ambitious initiatives are unlikely to achieve lasting change.

As the federal government grapples with $2 trillion annual deficits, $36 trillion debt, and nearly $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the stakes are higher than ever. Whether DOGE will rise to the challenge or become another footnote in the history of failed reform efforts remains to be seen.