Government waste is nothing new.  During World War II, Senator Harry Truman headed a committee that rooted out fraud and inefficiency in defense contracts.  It saved billions of dollars for taxpayers — some estimates say around four to five percent of our total wartime budget.  You heard that right: In one swoop, Truman uncovered enough waste to fund the entire Manhattan Project several times over.  Congress sang his praises, the press loved him, and the public got a sense that maybe, just maybe, it was possible to rein in government bloat.

Now we fast-forward to 2025.  President Trump has turned to Elon Musk — a man with a reputation for slashing headcounts and overhead at his companies — and created the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).  The goal is straightforward: Cut out the waste, prune useless programs, and put the fear of accountability into the bloated bureaucracies in Washington.

If you ask me, it sounds a lot like what Truman accomplished decades ago.  The difference is, instead of being applauded, DOGE is accused of being some sinister power-grab.  Musk himself has been labeled everything from a “tyrant” to a “Nazi.”  This is quite the departure from the hero’s welcome Truman received.

Let’s be honest: Not everyone has to like Elon Musk’s tactics.  When you bring in a private-sector approach, you sometimes end up with blunt moves — firing entire departments overnight; slashing grants; or gutting offices that, to some folks, provide useful services.  In the perfect world, we’d see the line drawn neatly between “waste” and “necessary,” but in Washington, everything has a lobby and a rationale.  If a program gets cut, the people who rely on that program will go ballistic.  That doesn’t automatically mean it’s not a black hole for taxpayer dollars, though.

The point is, the Truman Committee was lauded for carrying out basically the same kind of mission: exposing shady deals, overpriced contracts, and incompetent or corrupt organizations feasting on federal checks.  Yes, that was in a time of a more united national purpose.  Yes, Truman’s style was cooperative and bipartisan, whereas Musk’s style might be described as “shock therapy.”  But if we’re truly interested in cutting government waste, do we want a champion who tiptoes around every special interest?  Or do we want someone who isn’t afraid of ruffling feathers?

We also have to acknowledge the math.  Truman’s committee saved several points of the overall federal budget — an achievement we still talk about.  DOGE, at least so far, isn’t making the same dent.  It’s projected to save maybe two or three percent if things go well.  Why, then, is the backlash so intense?  If this is genuinely about small agencies that do next to nothing (or at least do so inefficiently), isn’t that exactly where we’d want cuts to happen?  Or do we cling to the familiar bureaucracy just because it’s been around for decades?

Partisanship plays a massive role.  Truman’s committee got unanimous support in the Senate.  DOGE faces half the Capitol eager to shut it down on day one — and we shouldn’t pretend the rhetoric is polite.  Meanwhile, the media’s coverage of Musk ranges from skeptical to downright hostile.  Considering that most Americans say they hate government waste, it’s peculiar we’re reacting so negatively to a program designed to root it out.  At least give the team a fair hearing before calling Musk a fascist.

We know that the Truman Committee worked.  It genuinely cut billions in wartime graft and, in the process, boosted national morale.  Wouldn’t it be nice if DOGE proved that same principle — just in the broader realm of the modern bureaucracy?  We might actually discover that many small, under-the-radar programs are burning money or duplicating efforts.  We might find giant contractors gaming the system to milk more funding.  That’s exactly the kind of behavior we saw in WWII defense spending.  Back then, the Senate came together to fix it.

So here’s a modest proposal: If Americans really hate waste, maybe let DOGE do its job.  Don’t like Elon Musk’s brash attitude?  Fine.  Keep an eye on him.  Demand transparency.  But remember, we once embraced a similar crusade for fiscal responsibility, and it worked out spectacularly under Truman’s banner.  It’s possible we could do it again — if we stopped flinging insults and actually gave the initiative a fair shot.  If it manages to save even a fraction of what the Truman Committee did relative to our modern budget, that’s still serious money.

Maybe it’s time we stop complaining about how bloated the federal government is unless we’re also prepared to cheer for an effort that tries to trim it.  A little open-mindedness might go a long way in preventing billions of tax dollars from going down the drain.

Randy White is a pastor in Taos, N.M. and teaches Scripture online at www.RandyWhiteMinistries.org.

Image: JD Lasica via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0 (cropped).