The Undead State

Made in ChatGPT, February 2025.

This isn’t the first time a government has tried to dismantle itself.

In 1995, after decades of declining relevance, the federal government abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) — once a powerhouse of economic regulation. But it took years to phase out its responsibilities, and many of its functions were simply absorbed into other agencies.

Now, in 2025, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is attempting a far more aggressive approach, eliminating entire agencies overnight. Supporters hail it as long-overdue reform, while critics warn of chaos and the erosion of essential public services.

But history suggests that bureaucracy, once created, rarely disappears — it only changes form.

The Origins: Pragmatic Solutions to Specific Problems

At the nation’s founding, the federal bureaucracy was minimal, with only a handful of agencies handling diplomacy, war, and treasury management. The Founders were skeptical of a large central government, and early agencies served more as extensions of presidential authority than independent entities.

However, as the nation expanded and economic life became more complex, Congress found it impractical to manage policy implementation directly. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created in 1887 to regulate railroads, marking one of the first instances of a federal agency with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers. This set a precedent for future agencies to act with a degree of autonomy.

What began as a pragmatic solution soon became a defining feature of the American administrative state.

Growth and Specialization: The Rise of the Administrative State

By the early 20th century, the federal government was no longer just an enforcer of laws but an active regulator of industries and social conditions. The Progressive Era brought agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), reflecting a belief that specialized expertise was necessary to handle economic and public health issues.

The New Deal of the 1930s expanded federal oversight, creating agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Social Security Administration (SSA), and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to manage economic recovery and public welfare. Unlike earlier agencies, these became permanent fixtures, cementing executive authority over economic policy.

With each crisis, the government responded by adding more agencies. What began as a response to instability evolved into a permanent system of specialized bureaucracies.

The Shift Toward Bureaucratic Rigidity

As agencies expanded, they developed internal rules, specialized personnel, and institutional cultures that made them increasingly resistant to change. Several factors contributed to this rigidity:

Congressional Delegation and Rulemaking Power

By passing broad legislation, Congress allows agencies to interpret and enforce laws through rulemaking — effectively giving them legislative power. These regulations become deeply embedded, making later revisions legally and politically difficult.

Self-Preservation and Expansion

Federal agencies have strong incentives to expand their mandates to justify continued funding and relevance. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, was originally focused on pollution control but later broadened its scope to climate policy. Bureaucrats frequently resist downsizing, arguing that new challenges justify additional oversight.

The Civil Service System

The Pendleton Act (1883) and later civil service reforms shield bureaucrats from political interference, ensuring continuity across administrations. However, this also makes agencies insulated from accountability — even when inefficient. Firing federal employees remains legally and procedurally difficult, further entrenching bureaucratic inertia.

Judicial Deference and Administrative Rulemaking

For decades, courts followed Chevron deference, instructing judges to defer to agency interpretations of vague statutes. This strengthened agency power and cemented regulations that became difficult to challenge. While recent Supreme Court decisions have begun limiting this deference, agencies still wield significant rulemaking authority.

These forces have collectively shaped a bureaucracy that is not only expansive but also deeply resistant to reform — precisely the conditions that DOGE has set out to dismantle.

The Modern Bureaucratic State and the DOGE Reforms

Today, agencies are deeply embedded in governance, making reform extraordinarily difficult. While DOGE aims to cut inefficiency, its mass layoffs, rapid agency closures, and sweeping budget cuts have sparked controversy. Critics argue that it risks gutting critical government functions without addressing the underlying reasons bureaucracies exist in the first place.

DOGE’s Approach to Reform

• Massive Workforce Reductions: Tens of thousands of federal employees have been laid off, with DOGE arguing that a leaner workforce will increase efficiency. Critics warn that the loss of institutional knowledge could disrupt essential public services, as decades of policy expertise disappear overnight.
• Elimination of Agencies: DOGE has eliminated agencies like the Department of Education and USAID, arguing they are unnecessary. Critics warn this will leave key functions unfulfilled or push responsibility onto state governments ill-prepared to manage them.
• Privatization Push: DOGE has aggressively advocated for shifting government functions to private industry, arguing that competition will drive efficiency. However, history suggests that privatization often comes with trade-offs — what is efficient for businesses does not always align with the broader goals of public accountability. While DOGE claims to be improving efficiency, history suggests that true reform is far more complex. Large-scale agency eliminations, such as the ICC’s dissolution, took decades to implement and required significant restructuring. Whether DOGE’s cuts will lead to meaningful efficiency gains or create new governance challenges remains to be seen.

Conclusion: The Bureaucracy We Have, for Better or Worse

Federal bureaucracy is inefficient — but reform is rarely simple. DOGE’s aggressive downsizing highlights the tension between efficiency and governance: Can we streamline government without losing essential functions?

What might DOGE’s long-term impact be? Could this lead to a future administration reinstating these agencies, or will private industry permanently absorb their roles?

History suggests that dismantling agencies is easier said than done. Will DOGE’s cuts truly create a more efficient government — or just shift bureaucracy into a new form?

Author’s Note

If you enjoyed The Undead State: Why Bureaucracy Refuses to Die, you might be interested in my other writings on government, economics, and society. I explore topics ranging from market concentration and inflation to AI personhood and futuristic legal battles.

Check out my work on Medium for more deep dives into policy, history, and speculative fiction — where bureaucracy, technology, and human nature collide.

Follow me here: https://medium.com/@lawtonperret

Let me know your thoughts in the comments — does bureaucracy ever really die, or does it just reinvent itself?

Read More

The Rise of the Bureaucratic State JAMES Q. WILSON During its first 150 years, the American republic was not thought to have a “bureaucracy,” and thus it…www.siue.eduThe Development of the Bureaucracy [ushistory.org] The Development of the Bureaucracywww.ushistory.orgThe Roots of American Bureaucracy, 1830-1900 - Harvard University Press William Nelson reinterprets nineteenth-century American history as a struggle between majority rule and minority rights.…www.hup.harvard.eduhttps://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2130516Establishing And Implementing The President’s “Department Of Government Efficiency” By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is…www.whitehouse.gov