The Paper DOGE Didn’t Want You to Read

Internal data shows DOGE was far less likely to cancel contracts with companies that donated to Republicans than with companies that donated to Democrats.

When the Trump administration created the Department of Government Efficiency, it sold DOGE as a neutral instrument, a scalpel meant to cut waste, fraud, and inefficiency from federal contracting. What Bellodi and Lee document instead is something far more dangerous: a procurement apparatus that systematically punished Democratic-aligned firms while shielding Republican donors from cancellation.

This was not ideological speculation. It was empirical.

Using federal procurement data and DOGE cancellation records, Bellodi and Lee tracked which contracts were terminated, when, and crucially, who those companies donated to politically. The pattern that emerged was stark. Firms that donated to Republicans were significantly less likely to have their contracts canceled than firms that donated to Democrats, even when operating in the same sectors, under the same agencies, and subject to the same efficiency justifications.

As the authors write:

“Republican donor firms were substantially less likely to face contract cancellations, whereas firms donating to Democrats were more likely to lose contracts.”

This was not random noise. It was a directional outcome.

The study situates DOGE within a broader constitutional problem: what happens when the executive branch gains the power to selectively weaponize bureaucracy without legislative oversight. DOGE was not merely trimming budgets. It was exercising discretionary punishment through administrative action.

Bellodi and Lee describe DOGE as an expansion of presidential authority that bypassed Congress entirely, allowing the executive to act through agencies while maintaining plausible deniability.

“This institutional development provides a rare opportunity to examine whether presidents can leverage politicized agencies for political and electoral goals.”

They didn’t have to speculate. The data answered the question.

One of the most revealing sections of the paper focuses on timing. Contract cancellations surged in politically strategic moments, particularly following elections and during periods of heightened partisan tension. The authors identify a sharp increase in cancellations affecting Democratic-donor firms after key electoral events, including state-level races that had national implications.

That matters because DOGE was framed as technocratic. But technocrats don’t move in electoral cycles.

DOGE did.

The paper’s analysis of Wisconsin-based firms is especially damning. After the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, companies headquartered in the state experienced a sudden spike in contract terminations, a spike that disproportionately affected firms associated with Democratic donations.

The authors describe this as evidence of strategic timing, not efficiency review.

“The timing of DOGE’s operations underscores the strategic use of procurement authority rather than neutral cost-cutting.”

This is where the constitutional stakes become unavoidable.

Federal procurement is supposed to be governed by statutory standards, not partisan loyalty tests. Yet the study shows that DOGE operated with enough opacity and discretion to make punishment indistinguishable from policy. No indictments. No hearings. Just quiet cancellations that cost firms millions.

And because these actions were administrative, not legislative, there was no vote to point to. No floor debate. No roll call.

Just consequences.

Bellodi and Lee are careful in their language, but their conclusion is unmistakable. DOGE represents a model of governance where bureaucracy becomes an extension of campaign strategy.

“Our findings shed new light on the consequences of agency politicization and align with the administration’s broader effort to consolidate support.”

That line should stop readers cold.

Because if procurement can be politicized this way under one administration, it can be replicated under any future one, left or right. The precedent is the danger.

This paper doesn’t allege corruption in the traditional sense. It documents something more insidious: a system where legality masks retaliation, and efficiency rhetoric conceals selective enforcement.

DOGE was never just about waste.

It was about leverage.

And now, thanks to Bellodi and Lee, the receipts are on the table.