Estimated Time to Read: 6 minutes
The Texas House Committee on Delivery of Government Efficiency, commonly known as DOGE, was created with a clear mission: reduce waste, improve transparency, and streamline Texas state government. This committee was expected to promote leaner governance through measured, responsible legislation. But the fiscal record tells a different story.
A full analysis of every bill passed through the DOGE Committee in the 89th Regular Session reveals that the committee approved over $223 million in new General Revenue spending for the 2026–2027 biennium. This does not include bills with undetermined costs, which could raise the actual fiscal burden higher still. What emerges from the data is a committee whose legislative output leaned heavily toward growth, not reduction, of government operations and spending.
Senate Bill 14: The Flagship Reform That Added Millions to the Budget
At the heart of DOGE’s work was Senate Bill 14 (SB 14), the so-called Regulatory Reform and Efficiency Act, authored by State Sen. Phil King (R-Weatherford). On its face, the bill aims to streamline Texas’s rulemaking process, limit judicial deference to agency interpretations, and promote more transparent and accountable regulatory practices.
SB 14 created the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office within the Governor’s Office and established a new Regulatory Efficiency Advisory Panel. It set ambitious goals: review outdated rules, reduce compliance costs, and build a public-facing digital platform for regulatory navigation. These reforms strongly supported core principles like free enterprise, limited government, and individual liberty.
However, the bill also came with a biennial cost of nearly $15.7 million and the hiring of 35.5 new full-time employees. The Governor’s Office projected annual website maintenance and staffing costs of over $7.8 million through 2030, with additional costs borne by the Department of Information Resources. Despite its mission to reduce regulatory burdens, SB 14 expanded state infrastructure significantly, raising a concern about whether it was replacing regulation with oversight bureaucracy.
Texas Policy Research gave an official recommendation of “Vote Yes; Amend” to lawmakers based on our comprehensive analysis. SB 14’s vision was worthy, but its execution risked institutionalizing government growth. We urged lawmakers to shorten the sunset provision from twelve years to five and include strict performance metrics to ensure it delivers measurable reductions in regulatory volume, not just administrative growth.
A Surprising Record: DOGE’s Bills and the $223 Million Question
SB 14 was not an outlier. Dozens of bills passed through DOGE carried new costs. From AI governance (e.g., SB 1964, which added $7.2 million and 10 FTEs) to expanded public information compliance, the committee’s output consistently authorized more spending, more staff, and more oversight.
Even well-intentioned efforts, such as improving transparency or streamlining contracting, often came at a price. Bills like HB 150, which cost the state over $135 million, and HB 149, which added over $25 million, further demonstrate that DOGE routinely supported fiscal expansion. Many of these bills added permanent staff and recurring annual costs to agency budgets.
| Impact Type | Number of Bills |
|---|---|
| Cost Neutral | 62 |
| Increase in State Spending | 15 |
| Decrease in State Spending | 1 |
Out of nearly 80 bills that passed out of the DOGE committee and analyzed, only one bill, HB 5246, clearly decreased General Revenue spending, and even that came from abolishing a fund rather than implementing a leaner program model. This suggests that, despite its stated mission, the committee played a key role in growing, not shrinking, Texas state government.
Can Cost-Neutral Bills Still Save Money? A Necessary Clarification
Many of the DOGE Committee’s bills were labeled cost-neutral, meaning the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) found no significant fiscal impact over the biennium. But does cost-neutral mean budget-cutting?
Not usually. In most cases, “cost-neutral” means the agency is expected to absorb new responsibilities using current resources. It does not mean operations will be more efficient or that taxpayers will spend less. There’s also little incentive or structure to return unspent funds or reduce full-time staff without specific legislative direction.
Some cost-neutral bills may eventually result in indirect or long-term savings, such as fewer lawsuits, streamlined reporting, or better procurement. But unless those outcomes are modeled and documented, they cannot be counted as realized savings. Instead, they remain theoretical and do not offset the hard costs associated with other spending bills.
So while it’s tempting to view cost-neutral legislation as a fiscal win, it more accurately represents a status quo, not a retrenchment.
Efficiency in Name, Expansion in Reality
The DOGE Committee’s title implies a focus on austerity, productivity, and streamlined governance. But when its legislative output is tallied, a very different picture emerges. With a net cost exceeding $223 million, the DOGE portfolio grew the Texas government through expanded regulation, oversight entities, and operational complexity.
Yes, many of these bills addressed important or timely issues like data privacy, AI management, and open records compliance, but few aimed to cut costs, reduce staffing, or eliminate redundant state functions. Efficiency is not simply about modernization. It requires hard choices, resource consolidation, and measurable performance improvements. Those were largely absent from DOGE’s 2025 output.
Conclusion: Measuring Government Efficiency by Outcome, Not Label
Senate Bill 14 offered a promising blueprint for smarter regulation, but its own financial footprint exemplifies the larger contradiction within DOGE’s work: regulatory efficiency pursued through organizational growth. While the goal was less red tape, the method was more infrastructure, more personnel, and more budget.
The DOGE Committee’s actions should serve as a case study in how legislative intentions can drift from outcomes. True government efficiency requires restraint, review, and repeal—not just oversight and platform-building. Texans who care about limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility must look beyond the names of committees and bills and ask a deeper question: What are the real costs, and what is actually being cut?
Methodology Note
This analysis is based strictly on fiscal notes assigned to bills as they left the House Committee on Delivery of Government Efficiency (DOGE) during the 89th Regular Session of the Texas Legislature. It does not reflect amendments, fiscal adjustments, or outcomes made later in the legislative process, including floor amendments or conference committee reports.
To ensure a comprehensive and accurate review, we utilized agentic artificial intelligence (AI) to systematically analyze and extract data from official fiscal notes published by the Legislative Budget Board. This AI-assisted process enabled rapid, consistent parsing of cost estimates, FTE changes, and committee voting records. All findings and visualizations in this post are derived from that structured dataset, verified and curated by human policy analysts for clarity and contextual accuracy.
FTE additions were captured from fiscal notes where available. In cases where FTEs were marked “Undetermined,” we preserved that status. The interpretation that cost-neutral bills often do not lead to real savings is based on how the LBB defines “no significant fiscal implication to the state.” This interpretation is policy-grounded and methodologically conservative, not speculative.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
