The DOGE Purge: Empirical Evidence of Politically Motivated Firings

And what it means for American Democracy

The evidence is now undeniable: what we're witnessing in Washington isn't about "efficiency" or "cutting waste." It's a calculated, ideologically-driven purge of federal agencies perceived as liberal—a playbook lifted directly from modern authoritarian regimes.

For months, we've heard rhetoric about "streamlining government" and "reducing bureaucracy." But when we follow the data rather than the narrative, a disturbing pattern emerges. Using measures of agency ideology based on federal executives' perceptions of agency leanings (Richardson, Clinton, & Lewis 2018), I analyzed which agencies are facing DOGE layoffs.

The results are striking. Agencies perceived as liberal are overwhelmingly more likely to face staffing cuts. This ideological targeting is the single strongest predictor of which agencies face layoffs—far outweighing practical considerations like agency size or budget. You can also access the spreadsheet with the data here.

In a regression analysis controlling for status as an independent commission, agency staff size, and total annual budget, the relationship is unambiguous:

The negative coefficient for ideology (-0.230) confirms that agencies perceived as more liberal (lower scores on the ideological scale) face significantly higher probabilities of layoffs. In fact, it is by far the strongest predictor. Agency size had no significant effect, while budget had only a modest influence.

(For those interested, these results have been replicated here and here.)

It is too early to account for the severity of the agency cuts, as the reporting on these numbers is still very shaky. However, the targeting for dismantling of USAID and CFTB, which happen to be the two of the most liberal-leaning agencies, is likely telling.

The targeting isn't random. The hardest-hit agencies are precisely those that regulate industry, protect public health, and expand access to education. Meanwhile, conservative-leaning agencies remain largely untouched. If efficiency were truly the goal, we would expect an even spread across the ideological spectrum. Instead, we see a clear ideological bias.

Project 2025, DOGE, and the Alignment with Authoritarian Tactics

Project 2025, a detailed plan for a potential conservative administration, alarmingly echoes the strategies used by authoritarian regimes to dismantle democratic institutions. Let's examine how its proposals fit the authoritarian playbook:

This pattern should alarm anyone familiar with how democratic institutions are dismantled. The playbook is distressingly familiar:

• Frame political purges as administrative reform: Project 2025 consistently uses the language of "efficiency," "reducing bureaucracy," and "cutting wasteful spending" to justify its proposed changes. This framing masks the potential for politically motivated actions, such as targeting agencies that enforce environmental regulations or protect civil rights.

• Target agencies that constrain executive power: The Project 2025 document specifically calls for significant alterations or dismantling of agencies like the EPA, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, and potentially the Department of Homeland Security. These agencies, in their current mandates, often serve as checks on executive power and corporate interests.

• Weaken regulatory enforcement without changing laws: Project 2025 advocates for rescinding numerous regulations, streamlining permitting processes, and reducing funding for agencies responsible for environmental protection and labor standards. This weakens enforcement without requiring the more challenging and public process of legislative change.

• Replace career civil servants with loyalists: The project document repeatedly emphasizes the need for political appointees in key positions, even those traditionally held by career professionals. Project 2025 explicitly praises the idea of replacing career officials with "aligned political appointees," ensuring the bureaucracy executes the executive's agenda without resistance.

What makes this approach so insidious is that it achieves policy rollbacks without legislative action. You don't need to repeal environmental regulations if you've gutted the EPA's enforcement capability. You don't need to change consumer protection laws if the agencies enforcing them have been hollowed out. This is precisely why authoritarians target the bureaucracy first. It's easier to dismantle the machinery of government than to change the laws themselves, especially in systems with separated powers.

To understand the significance of these developments in the United States, we only need to look at recent history in Hungary and Turkey. There, systematic purges of the civil service have served as a gateway to consolidating power and suppressing dissent—under the guise of reform or security concerns. We’re beginning to see the same pattern emerge here.

Hungary’s Cautionary Tale

Since Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party returned to power in 2010, Hungary’s government has systematically dismantled democratic institutions, starting with the civil service. One of their initial moves was to amend the Civil Service Act, allowing for the dismissal of civil servants without cause. This legislative change enabled the removal of experienced professionals—replaced en masse by party loyalists. Many thousands of Hungary’s civil servants have been replaced, causing a loss of institutional expertise and creating a patronage system. In 2023, the purges expanded to the military, allowing the defense minister to dismiss high-ranking officers, further centralizing power within Orbán’s inner circle.

Turkey’s Post-Coup Crackdown

Following the failed coup attempt in July 2016, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government declared a state of emergency and carried out sweeping purges across the public sector. Anyone accused of ties to the Gülen movement—or other “terrorist” organizations—was summarily dismissed. By July 2018, tens of thousands of public sector workers had been removed, including military personnel, police officers, teachers, and academics. In a single decree that month, over 18,000 civil servants were purged—rapidly reshaping the public sector to fit the government’s political objectives.

The Disturbing Parallels at Home

In the U.S., we’re hearing “cost-cutting” and “efficiency” used to justify targeting specific agencies—often those perceived as liberal. That’s precisely what happened in Hungary and Turkey: what began as nominally “administrative” or “security” reforms quickly evolved into broad efforts to replace nonpartisan professionals with loyalists. The result? Institutions lost their independence and became rubber stamps for the executive’s agenda.

Just as Orbán and Erdoğan framed their purges as necessary steps for national interest, we see the Trump administration framing these layoffs as routine bureaucratic adjustments. But the data shows an unmistakable ideological bias. The purge efforts are as brazen as they are predictable—with the Trump administration’s attempts to fire commissioners at independent agencies, including the FEC and EEOC, the firing of inspectors general, and the order to fire all career DOJ prosecutors hired by Biden. We have also started to see telltale signs of efforts to purge the military.

Project 2025 provides a roadmap for these actions, openly advocating for many of the same strategies, which the Trump administration is now following.

This Is Likely Only the Beginning

The current wave of firings represents just the initial phase of what appears to be a systematic effort to reshape the federal government. Historical examples from other countries suggest this process typically accelerates once the initial purges face limited resistance.

We’re witnessing the early stages of an ideological purge designed to weaken the regulatory state and consolidate power. By targeting agencies that enforce environmental protections, consumer rights, and public health programs, these firings function as an indirect policy rollback—without requiring legislation.

What's particularly concerning is how effectively these actions have been disguised as mere "cost-cutting" or "efficiency" measures. The pattern is clear to anyone examining the data, but the framing has successfully obscured the ideological nature of these decisions in public discourse.

If the White House and DOGE continue to follow the authoritarian playbook, we can expect:

• Replacement of career officials with political loyalists

• Relocation of agency offices to disperse institutional knowledge

• Restructuring that centralizes authority under political appointees

• Revised internal procedures that hamper agency effectiveness

The gutting of regulatory agencies represents a profound shift in governance—one that happens not through dramatic constitutional changes but through the quiet dismantling of institutional capacity.

This isn’t about smaller government. It’s about unaccountable government. And as Hungary and Turkey have shown, once a government gains the power to purge without pushback, the democratic fabric tears faster than most citizens realize. The parallels are clear; the only question is how we respond.