Here's What I Would Tell DOGE If It Had an Exit Interview

Federal employees have spent the last year living inside a case study of what happens when political ambition outruns legal authority. The Department of Government Efficiency—DOGE—arrived with a chainsaw and a promise to “defeat bureaucracy.” It left behind nuclear-safety scares, gutted public-health capacity, and a judiciary repeatedly reminding agencies that career civil servants are not disposable. As we head into Thanksgiving, many employees are still trying to regain their footing. This moment is an opportunity to steady the ground beneath you.

The Legal Reality Behind the Spectacle

For all of DOGE’s rhetoric about “efficiency,” its most consequential acts were not symbolic—they were unlawful or unsustainable. Firing 350 nuclear-safety engineers and rehiring them within 24 hours wasn’t just a management misstep; it underscored the statutory limits on removing career staff whose work implicates national security and continuity of operations.

Likewise, attempts to freeze or dismantle public-health, agricultural-safety, and foreign-aid programs collided with Title 5 protections, collective bargaining rights, and agency-specific mandates Congress never repealed. Courts saw through the rush. Judges across the country ordered reinstatements, back pay, and in some instances openly questioned whether DOGE functioned as an unconfirmed “shadow agency head.”

If you lived through this, your anxiety is rational: the law held, but often only after employees suffered career-altering disruption.

How Chaos Turns Into Individual Harm

DOGE’s mass “justify your job in 48 hours” emails triggered not only confusion but a wave of coerced exits—154,000 deferred resignations and more than 70,000 early retirements. For individual employees, the harm was intensely practical. HR offices were so overwhelmed with buyouts, retirement packets, and reversals that pensions lagged, onboards stalled, and time-sensitive actions slipped.

Many of you saw how quickly mission failure becomes personal: missed TSP contributions, inaccurate SF-50s, and scrambled reassignment notices. These are the kinds of details that later affect MSPB deadlines, EEO claims, and retirement eligibility. If you are still sorting through the fallout, you are not alone—and you are not imagining the stakes.

What This Means for Your Rights Going Forward

The collapse of DOGE offers one clear takeaway: career protections matter only if employees document, question, and challenge unlawful actions in real time. When agencies abruptly fired 26,511 employees and then quietly rehired many before judges ruled, they revealed their vulnerability to scrutiny.

For GS-9 and above employees, especially those in policy, science, IT, HR, or national-security roles, this is the moment to tighten your record-keeping: save directives, calendar changes, and any instruction that deviates from written policy. Sudden changes to duties, performance plans, or telework arrangements should be treated as potential groundwork for adverse action.

A Grounded, Mindful Way to Carry This Forward

Amid all the numbers and legal drama, remember this: a mass experiment attempted to redefine your worth, and the system ultimately rejected that premise. The courts, the public, and even agencies themselves recognized the irreplaceable value of your work.

Mindfulness here isn’t about ignoring what happened—it’s about reclaiming your center. When your agency feels unstable, return to what you can control: clarity, documentation, and steady, intentional responses rather than fear-driven ones.

And if you want deeper guidance on how to protect your rights in uncertain times, the firm’s Power Hub offers step-by-step resources for federal employees navigating upheaval.

Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.