> It's easy to judge whether reducing government waste and improving living standards is good/bad (obviously it's good).
What you have described is obviously good. The question remains whether DOGE will achieve those aims, or if it does, whether the side-effects of its work will outweigh the benefits. To go back to the Iraq war, the mission statement of destroying weapons of mass destruction was obviously good. Unfortunately, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and even if there had been, the tremendous chaos and cost of the operation would have been a large price to pay.
I am sceptical that DOGE is really about efficiency in the first place. And even if it is, I am even more sceptical that they will be able to achieve these aims, based on the behaviour that they have shown so far, and based on what I have already experienced of government efficiency initiatives.