Higher education has found itself at the center of a growing cultural and policy debate, fueled by state-level initiatives inspired by the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established by President Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order.
A new brief published by ACE, “State-level DOGE Initiatives as a Tool for Good Government or the Culture Wars? ”looks at how states are launching their own DOGE initiatives and how this is impacting higher education in those states.
While the federal DOGE has been wide-ranging, leading to large-scale employee buyouts and terminations, contract cancellations, and real estate reductions, state-level DOGEs have taken a more varied approach, reflecting local priorities and cultural narratives, according to the brief.
Over a dozen states have launched their own DOGE initiatives, branding them as tools to enhance efficiency, cut spending, and identify government inefficiencies. This has led to actions that prioritize cuts over careful evaluation, sparking debates about the impact on higher education and public services. These efforts include measures such as terminating state employees, crowdsourcing public input, and leveraging artificial intelligence.
Many state DOGEs operate under the assumption of widespread government waste, often conflating inefficiency with programs that support vulnerable populations or promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). For example, Oklahoma’s DOGE-OK recommended returning $157 million in unused federal grants, while Florida’s DOGE has targeted DEI programs in higher education, raising concerns about academic freedom. Some, like South Carolina’s, with its focus on regulatory burdens for businesses, avoid the cultural stridency seen in other states. Others, such as those in Kansas and Missouri, emphasize public engagement through online portals.
The rise of state DOGEs reflects a broader trend toward rapid government reform, driven by public demand for accountability and efficiency. However, the potential ramifications for higher education funding and state services remain a point of contention, as states navigate the balance between cutting costs and preserving essential programs.