Swiping Left: DOGE’s Unprecedented Credit Card Crackdown
Imagine reaching into a government employee’s desk and finding two, three, even four credit cards—while their colleague down the hall, supposedly with the same duties, can charge tens of thousands to the taxpayers’ tab. According to Elon Musk, head of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), that’s not far from reality. Musk recently took to X (formerly Twitter) to claim, “there are twice as many credit cards issued and active than the total number of government employees.” It’s a provocative assertion—but what does it truly reveal about the state of America’s bureaucracy?
DOGE, a brainchild of the Trump administration, announced with thunderous PR that it had deactivated 470,000 unused or unneeded government credit cards. That’s nearly half a million plastic rectangles—some tied to employees, others apparently languishing in forgotten drawers across 30 federal agencies. The objective: plug a leak of waste, fraud, and questionable spending that cost an eye-popping $40 billion in annual government expenditures. With an original pool of 4.6 million government cards, the scope of the excess seems staggering.
This purge, the latest chapter in a growing federal trend of ‘cutting the fat,’ is being lauded by conservatives as a long-overdue reckoning. Yet, beneath the headlines lies a more complicated story. What’s the real cost of efficiency, and who ultimately pays the price?
Crunching Numbers, Cutting Corners: What the Data Really Shows
Any progressive will tell you: eliminating waste is good governance. But scratch the surface, and conservative austerity often looks less like smart management and more like a hammer swing where a scalpel is required. The Department of Government Efficiency’s approach has been blunt, targeting everything from dormant cards to essential operational lifelines.
Take DOGE’s own numbers. Its detailed breakdowns show the Department of Veterans Affairs—a crucial support base for millions of American former service members—led government card spending with $17.3 billion. Hot on its heels, the Defense Department’s $11.2 billion signals just how deeply plastic has penetrated federal spending habits. The Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, too, each clock in at over $1 billion.
On the surface, slashing unused cards sounds like a no-brainer. Yet veterans’ advocates and internal auditors insist that it’s not always as simple as cutting up forgotten cards; many are attached to disaster relief, routine health services, or critical supplies for those most in need. According to the Project on Government Oversight, “every time you restrict purchasing power in a one-size-fits-all way, you risk creating bottlenecks and delays—sometimes for services that save lives.”
The drastic cutback comes alongside a reported $115 billion in savings since this task force started its work—money not only pinched from credit cards, but also from downsizing entire agencies and trimming personnel. DOGE brags of recommending more than 200,000 government layoffs, with over 75,000 already agreeing to leave through voluntary buyouts. Ask yourself: is your government genuinely becoming more efficient, or simply smaller and less capable of serving you?
“When austerity hits the frontlines—whether through cut-up credit cards or forced retirements—real people feel the pinch, not just bureaucrats.”
Operational disruptions weren’t mere hypotheticals. When DOGE froze Transportation Security Administration (TSA) credit cards, a spokesperson had to assure the public, “Canine operations have not been adversely affected by this effort,” following temporary buying restrictions. One can only imagine the risk if field agents, first responders, or doctors lose access to needed resources due to poorly aimed cost-cutting. Harvard economist Laura Tyson notes, “Efforts to root out waste shouldn’t undermine mission-critical flexibility—the cost of delay can quickly dwarf the price of a few unused cards.”
Waste, Fraud, and the Conservative Efficiency Trap
Conservatives frequently invoke the specter of waste, fraud, and abuse as justification for downsizing government, but history warns us of the pitfalls when ideology trumps effectiveness. The 1990s saw similar cries for reinvention, with the Clinton-Gore “Reinventing Government” initiative saving billions—but also triggering headaches for the most vulnerable as cuts sometimes landed hardest on frontline workers and communities.
Today, Musk’s DOGE continues this dual narrative: high-profile wins in belt-tightening alongside a quietly rising tide of operational friction. While it spotlights abuses—like the overissuance of credit cards or improper unemployment claims (with states like California, New York, and Massachusetts fingered for a majority of mistakes)—the ongoing audit risks missing the forest for the trees. Experts from the Brookings Institution warn, “You don’t create lasting savings by random acts of cost-cutting. You need a coherent vision, constant feedback from the field, and the humility to course-correct.”
Program after program—USAID, Veterans Affairs, disaster response—depends on judicious access to funds. When the pendulum swings too far, frontline staff become mired in new red tape, lengthening response times. Beyond that, the drive to automate oversight and shrink agencies has led to legal showdowns; some courts have temporarily blocked DOGE from unfettered access to government systems, citing privacy or due process concerns.
This tension isn’t new. Americans saw it in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when overly rigid procurement rules delayed crucial relief spending, and again during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, as federal supply chains buckled under bureaucratic inertia. Every time, the lesson is clear: Efficiency cannot come at the expense of flexibility, transparency, and humanity.
Progressive governance demands targeting waste without sacrificing the very services that knit this country together. Thoughtful oversight—backed by transparent data, independent audits, and feedback from those on the ground—stands in sharp contrast to the latest conservative experiment of alternately slashing or surrendering needed capacity. As Americans, you deserve government that is both wise with public dollars and vigilant in maintaining the common good. Isn’t that the standard we should demand—no matter whose name is stamped on the news release?
