“We are pushing $37 trillion in debt. That is unsustainable,” U.S. Rep. Glen G.T. Thompson said; the congressman was in Harrisburg this week for a press luncheon. He spoke on many topics; including the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

“It's long overdue. It is not easy. It is hard,” Thompson said. "Nobody wants to see their ox gored."

Thompson said he has pointed out unintended consequences of DOGE processes to the administration and defended essentials for the state; but overall remains supportive.

“If there’s something special to any one of us, we don’t want to see that negatively impacted,” Thompson said. “But this is a national problem, and so it needs everybody needs to embrace it. We have to make some tough decisions here."

Republicans have lauded DOGE efforts for tackling the nation’s financial straits. The U.S. has at least a $1.8 trillion annual deficit in the budget.

One regulatory expert questions using mass layoffs and contract canceling as cost savers. The biggest chunks of spending come from the military, social security and medicare, and debt payments.

“The savings that DOGE reports are not really making a big dent in the overall picture of the federal government's fisc,” Cary Coglianese said, professor of regulatory law and policy at Penn Carey Law.

Legal concerns remain over the DOGE process—are cuts being made randomly? Are they being made for personal or political gain? Coglianese says there are three broad legal concerns being raised by DOGE actions; transparency, arbitrariness, and favoritism.

“We need better awareness of what DOGE is doing, who is doing it?” Coglianese said.

Putting aside the ‘how’ of DOGE processes, the results of the agency's work is coming to a test point. For all the software updates, searching for fraud waste and abuse, and employee layoffs— only Congress can drop the ax on program funding.

“If congress could just give Trump authority to go do it— I think that's why they jumped on board,” Rep. Seth Grove (R-York) said, who approves of DOGE work but remains skeptical of it resulting in permanent change. "They thought there was a mechanism for Trump to unilaterally do it, where they didn't get blow back. 'It wasn't my decision’, right? If something they or their constituents liked got cut, they’d have political protection."