When President-elect Donald Trump declared that he would “shut it down” during his campaign, many dismissed it as mere rhetoric. Yet beneath the sound bite sits a policy approach that’s surprisingly ordinary — at least by international standards. It’s what many democracies call “machinery of government” (MoG) changes: administrative overhauls — common in countries such as Australia, Canada, and the UK — that align government functions with evolving policy priorities.

What Are Machinery Of Government Changes?

MoG refers to the administrative restructuring of government organizations: creating new departments, merging existing ones, or redistributing their functions. MoG changes enhance government effectiveness and efficiency by tailoring structures to serve the needs of the moment. In parliamentary democracies, prime ministers regularly wield MoG powers to respond to emerging challenges or shift priorities.

For instance:

  • Australia: The Department of Climate Change was reestablished to reflect renewed environmental priorities in 2022.
  • Canada: The Indigenous Services portfolio was divided to address reconciliation with First Nations more effectively.
  • United Kingdom: The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy was split into three distinct entities in 2023.

A Comparison Of US And Commonwealth Approaches

In the United States, MoG changes are disdained as chaotic political overreach, especially when considered through a partisan lens. The US, constrained by its separation of powers, requires Congress for major restructuring, making the process slower and more fragmented. By contrast, MoG changes are considered pragmatic in parliamentary systems, where more centralized authority enables swift changes.

Aspect United States Commonwealth (e.g., Australia, the UK)
Decision-Making President, with Congress’ involvement Prime Minister/Cabinet decision
Legal Requirements Often requires legislative action Executive prerogative; less legislative input
Speed Of Changes Slow; often crisis-driven Fast, proactive, and systemic
Drivers Of Change Crises or political mandates Strategic policy shifts
Examples  DHS (2003); DNI (2004); CFPB (2010) MBIE (2012); UK Health Security Agency (2021)

Why More Systematic And Regular MoG Changes Could Work For The US

Adopting a more MoG-like approach to government restructuring offers several benefits. Future administrations — regardless of party — could use MoG changes to modernize government operations and better serve national priorities by:

  • Aligning better with policy priorities. An MoG approach could reorganize departments to align with evolving national goals, such as reshaping energy and environmental agencies to address climate change.
  • Improving civil service efficiency. The US federal government is notorious for duplication of effort. For example, over 40 federal agencies oversee food safety. Streamlining such fragmented oversight could cut costs and improve service delivery. The incoming Trump administration has proposed merging the Food and Drug Administration’s food safety responsibilities with the Food Safety and Inspection Service to create a single “Federal Food Safety Agency” to unify oversight.
  • Increasing responsiveness to crises. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the limits of US bureaucratic agility. Establishing temporary crisis agencies or task forces with clear mandates — as is done in the UK and Canada — could help the US respond more effectively to future challenges, whether public health emergencies or natural disasters.
  • Modernizing the bureaucracy. Eliminating redundant layers of bureaucracy and focusing on digital transformation would make federal agencies more responsive and transparent. For example, the incoming Trump administration has said that it will consolidate narrow commissions and bureaus such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Similarly, Australia folded narrower agencies into a single Border Force.
  • Enhancing customer experiences. By focusing agencies on customer journeys, the US government could make customer experiences more intuitive and efficient. Service Canada aligns agency operations around life events such as retirement, unemployment, or having a child. The Biden administration has already taken steps toward a journey-centric life events model (Forrester client access only).
  • Simplifying politics. MoG changes could help reduce legislative gridlock by shifting responsibilities within the executive branch. While such changes would require careful planning to maintain checks and balances, they could enable administrations to implement necessary reforms without years of partisan negotiation.

Could this be the moment that the US federal government embraces MoG as a strategic tool for more effective public services? Let’s discuss.