Yes, but we should focus on abolishing useless agencies rather than just firing staff

It depends on what qualifies a useless agency but other than that I agree with you. Firing people isn't gonna fix anything we need change at the agency level. The only issue that could appear is as I just said how we decide what a useless agency is could be biased and constantly removing and remaking agencies will lower efficiency not raise it.

The deep sate is what’s going on with the Trump administration, you want to abolish insider trading in our government, not knowing what’s going on in Iran, why you haven’t received your DODGE/tariff checks, and the countless other lies and things we don’t know, you don’t blame the useless agencies you look at the person who decided on DODGE which cost us more than they saved and fire them which is why you fire staff, an agency’s can’t work without them.

Yes, I think they should abolish useless agencies instead of firing staff because all they are doing is staying without staff and not getting any more staff back .

The President alone should not be the sole determinant in deciding which agencies or workers are "useless", this discretion should be left solely to the agencies and Congress through congressional review.

First, I believe that allowing the president to fire federal servants gives him too much individual political power. Secondly, by abolishing "useless" agencies, it does not allow for reform of said agencies to get played out.

If we just fire staff we could be getting rid of good workers, so if we abolish useless agencies it would be better.

Yes, I think they should abolish useless agencies instead of firing staff because all they are doing is staying without staff and not getting any more staff back .

Firing people isn't going to fix anything we need change at the agency level. The only issue that could appear is as I just said how we decide what a useless agency is could be biased and constantly removing and remaking agencies will lower efficiency not raise it.

You can’t reform or abolish agencies if the same unelected bureaucrats inside them keep blocking the changes.

Abolishing agencies isn’t a quick fix either, and it can remove important services people rely on. The real issue isn’t just the agencies themselves, but how they’re managed, so improving oversight and accountability makes more sense than eliminating entire systems or just firing staff.

The real issue isn’t “useless agencies vs. unnecessary staff,” but how to improve performance in complex systems without breaking essential functions. Broad removal strategies tend to overshoot, weakening capacity faster than they eliminate waste.

If we just fire staff we could be getting rid of good workers, so if we abolish useless agencies it would be better.

who gets to decide what agencies are useless? instead of firing staff we should focus on fixing the problem.

Yes aagencies should be made smaller, more efficient and integerated with each other. That would reduce public burden and create more streamlined purpose driven gov machinery.

I would argue that abolishing agencies is not the answer either, but rather implement just and fair practices for employees of the federal government and raise their pay. The current plan seems to attack low level employees while creating busy work reorganizing agencies and creating more top level positions for SES employees who are uncaring, unjust, and are the real deep state.

Not that many agencies are useless, agencies such as the FDA are important, most of the waste in the government isn't on that level, but rather in individual projects and offices.

we would need to find opportunities for the staff to look forward to before letting them go because the job may be their only source of income

You should instead focus your time and resources on increasing the efficiency of the agencies instead of abolishing. Look to combine.

If there is conspiracy within government agencies, this cannot be solved through completely abolishing agencies.

The average person doesn’t understand what agencies fully do and should not presume they are useless.

Government employees are given specific protections in order to ensure that they can't just be fired for political motives. If any agencies are to be abolished, it should run through Congress. The president is explicitly not allowed to just fire people.

mass firing career experts could weaken government services and make agencies more politically biased.

the ones that are being abolished are not useless, they serve a pivotal role in many people's lives.

A strong counterargument is that government problems usually come from systems and laws, not a “Deep State.” Many agencies that seem useless actually do important but unseen work, like safety and disaster response. Firing staff or abolishing agencies doesn’t fix the root issues and can even make things worse by removing experienced workers. Real reform comes from improving rules and accountability, not just cutting people.

It's not all of the agencies that are at fault, but some are more "useless" than others and should, eventually, be abolished. The term "useless" seems very derogative, however, considering that it could belittle the other parties and how they view the agencies' contributions to the nation itself.

The term "useless" within the political world is being politicized and I would support an independent commission looking into useless agencies, not a politically motivated institution, group, or person.

Most people want the government to be smaller and have less debt, which makes it popular for political leaders to fire people and cut agencies. The problem is that often this is done in a way intended to get flashy publicity to make the leader look good, resulting in careless cuts. While useless agencies should be cut, this needs to be done in a thought out way, and it is too easy for leaders to cut agencies that don't need to be cut.

I disagree, due to the importance of the burden falling upon the company and not the individual. Abolishing these useless agencies can lead others without jobs.

There is no such thing as a useless agency if they just had people who are competent, if we have people that can make a difference the agency would no longer be useless.

A strong counterargument is that abolishing “useless agencies” isn’t as simple as it sounds. What counts as “useless” is often subjective, and many agencies provide important services people rely on. Getting rid of entire agencies can also be more disruptive than helpful, causing loss of expertise and gaps in services. Instead, it’s usually more effective to reform and improve agencies rather than eliminate them completely.

If the president can easily fire civil servants and replace them with who they want, then it can lead to constant swinging and political divide, and can also lead to less skill in those civil positions.

its useless populist austerity nonsense the "deep state" of unelected "woke" officials isnt causing the problems, just look at who funds the election candidates and youll see the real problem.

yes, i agree with what you say but we need to get better agency and we should abolish because we won't get more agencies, and that would destructive through the community.

Agencies are never useless, they just need different amounts of care and have different amount of importance

The agencies aren’t the ones actually doing anything. That wouldn’t be right to abolish them. We should fire the people who actually did something and have a reason to be punished, the staff.

personnel and incentives matter more, and are far easier to change, than entire institutional structures

I’d argue that focusing only on abolishing agencies misses the bigger problem, the people running them. Even if you eliminate or restructure agencies, the same bureaucrats and leadership culture often stay in place and continue pushing the same agendas. Real reform means holding individuals accountable, not just changing the structure on paper. Government employees should carry out the will of elected leaders, and if they resist that, they should be replaced. Just like in any organization, you can’t fix the system without also addressing the people inside it.

No, agencies are never useless as no one fully understand each working way the states really work or what problems will come.

If abolish useless companies, the staff of the companies would not have a job. But instead you should help the company to increase it to be more of valued company in the future.

Most of our agencies in our government have been around for a while, if they were 'useless' they would have been weeded out already. For newer agencies that deal with new phenomenons like AI, those are not 'useless' as they are necessary to our new and changing society. Overtime, if they are provide nothing then it will be acceptable to get rid of them. However, for all agencies, defunding is a better alternative to abolishing.

If an agency proves useless it can be a complete waste of material. If we focus on retaining and gaining proper staff it can increase productivity. A primary issue regarding this is that firing so many would lead to increased poverty. We should instead invest in proper training rather than firing many, I'm sure it would also prove a usless agency as useful when given the right material.

It can be difficult to see the utility of departments and as the system exists now, there is not nearly enough oversight for one person (POTUS) to make such drastic decisions. If the president is given unlimited access to gut the system as they see fit, there will be vast consequences that we can't fully realize until it's too late to fix them.

The power to easily remove someone from a position beneath one's own should be reserved for private companies & businesses.

There is a reason there exists regulations and rules, wiping out dozens of agencies limits the governments ability to regulate its citizenry. Also this wouldn't even work to remove any possible "Deep State"

You can’t reform or abolish agencies if the same unelected bureaucrats inside them keep blocking the changes.

No, The way I see it everything has a purpose, so abolishing "Useless" agencies wouldn't help and would likely cause harm

There is no deep state. It is a fiction designed to cover Ill advised governing decisions and provide an entity for people to blame and focus anger.

There is no useless agencies they all serve a purpose and if you do not understand those purposes then they are not for you. And getting rid of those agencies is still firing the staff.

I agree with your statement as I believe that those agencies are taking money away from more important causes.

To call something useless says something more about the individual labeling it so, including the consequences of that agency's actions for that individual. Obviously, each person is going to decide that some agencies are "useless" for themselves. We should look at the real world implications of an agency and it's actions, and if a certain group of members of that agency are not acting in line with the values and plans of that agency, then there should be a correction there.

Shutting down whole agencies can cause problems and lose important work. It’s usually better to fix them instead of getting rid of them.

Shutting down whole agencies can cause problems and lose important work. It’s usually better to fix them instead of getting rid of them.

The president being able to remove integral government institutions at will demonstrates a huge gap in the checks and balances system.

Who gets to decide if an agency is useless if the work it is doing is mandated by law. For example, the department of education. We are going to end up spending more money with the mistakes made the DOGE vs. actual savings for reducing agencies and staff that administer FSA and student loan debt.

Almost all agencies exist for a reason, and a president that is uneducated such Donald Trump could spell disaster for the nation, as it already has with the DOGE fiasco.

Most agencies in the USA are not useless, and create a web of self reinforcing policies, touching even one agency may collapse the whole web.

I don't believe there is a "deep state", and think that we need to trust the individuals in power with what they have been elected to do.

personnel-focused firing (via Schedule F or reclassification) is a tactical tool for accountability, whereas agency abolition is a strategic goal that is often legally and politically impossible

No counter argument. Abolishing agencies that don't necessarily do anything is something the government should already be doing.

Getting rid of an entire agency would get rid of a government resource, just fire bad staff and the agency wont be useless anymore. Agencies exist for a reason they didn't make them for fun.

The "deep state" is a large network of agencies so removing parts may misunderstand how the government works and lead to instability

It takes time to evaluate the utility of federal agencies. It's something one man just can't do on his own.

Firing staff just hurt the families of the staff and economy, We should focus on abolishing the useless agencies but find new jobs for terminated staff

If you just fire staff, another group could change how we see and work with that agency. I agree with you in the sense that some agencies have no reason to exist, but others are named wrong and can be used for the greater good than they are right now.

If you just fire staff, another group could change how we see and work with that agency. I agree with you in the sense that some agencies have no reason to exist, but others are named wrong and can be used for the greater good than they are right now.

That would be good, but if we just fire staff, it will create more unemployed people, and wont help our issues just make them worse.

"Useless agencies" is subjective and would be used as a political weapon in order to enforce compliance with the majority party.

The median American is terrible at assessing the utility of various agencies because the federal bureaucracy is vast beyond comprehension. The failure of D.O.G.E. demonstrates that agencies which are considered useless or redundant at first glance are actually incredibly useful.

The biggest problem with the “fire the Deep State” narrative is that it often treats the entire professional civil service as politically illegitimate simply because unelected experts and career employees continue functioning across administrations. In reality, most federal workers are not partisan operatives. They are scientists, engineers, analysts, inspectors, auditors, emergency managers, air traffic specialists, cybersecurity experts, park rangers, investigators, and administrators who keep the government operational regardless of which party wins elections.

It is reasonable…  Read more to debate whether certain agencies are too large, inefficient, outdated, or should even exist at all. Governments absolutely should evaluate redundancy, waste, and mission creep. But mass political purges of career staff can create serious unintended consequences: loss of institutional knowledge, weakened oversight, slower disaster response, reduced regulatory consistency, and increased corruption risk if loyalty becomes more important than competence.

Institutions do not operate themselves; people do. If the same networks and actors remain in power, abolishing agencies merely relocates the problem instead of solving it.

I think that having public agencies that are controlled by government can help control them better, making it less likely for someone to get away with fake things or private issues. Many people rely on those jobs to support their families, and by firing staff, they are making it harder for those in higher positions to function properly.

Congress, not the president, controls agency existence Agencies are created by legislation. A president cannot unilaterally abolish most of them. That requires majority support in Congress, often 60 votes in the Senate. In practice, that is far harder than replacing leadership or changing hiring. So “abolish agencies” is politically much less feasible than it sounds.

Get rid of the agencies that have proven statistically to be harmful/ and or useless. Son't be all willy nilly about it like the evil oompa loompa.

It is incredibly difficult to isolate an entire agency as being "useless" as there are many functions and roles within one. If our goal is firing corrupt people and systems, blanket destruction is not the means to do so, as it will result in the devastation of programs people rely on.

Well sometimes seemingly "useless" agencies do provide services and help communities with needs often overlooked orignored previously.

fireing staff only leaves about a couple hundred without a job but if we abolish the agency all together now you have tens of thousands of people without a job so how would that make the situation better.

There is no deep state. That is ridculous. I'm all for getting rid of waste funding, but there is legitimately no large conspiracy theory.

Agencies could be useful so firing the staff of those is pointless as those workers have jobs they worked hard for, so therefore is it really useless?

Getting rid of entire agencies could eliminate important government functions. It's often more practical to improve accountability and replace ineffective employees than to abolish agencies that still serve a necessary purpose