Since originality is dead and redundancy is in—Kentucky has been quick to join the list of states mirroring the new, and legally questionable, Department of Governmental Efficiency or DOGE at the state level.

The proposed Kentucky Senate Bill 257 (SB 257) aims to establish the Office of Government Efficiency within the Auditor of Public Accounts, tasked with evaluating and recommending improvements to the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and performance of state government agencies, programs, and operations.

Aiming to cut waste and be more efficient is good. I am annoyingly known to be very efficient with how much I have to talk, aiming for fewer words because I don’t love hearing my own voice. I also have had relationships struggle because of my incessant need to be efficient…like looking up the EXACT time to head to dinner based on traffic patterns– so far be it from me to criticize anyone wanting to work at efficiency. I am one of you.

But what the proposed Kentucky office, or KOGE as they wish to be called, doesn’t factor in are the possible inadvertent negative impacts on marginalized groups, including LGBTQ individuals and people of color.

As history has shown, when the costs start getting cut—stuff for people who are of the lesser regarded class, aka the others, are often first on the chopping block. Efficiency initiatives often lead to budget cuts or restructuring of programs deemed non-essential. Services specifically supporting marginalized communities, such as LGBTQ health programs or minority outreach initiatives, might be at risk if they are not prioritized, thereby reducing access to critical resources for these populations.

A primary focus on cost-cutting may also neglect to factor in the importance of equity. Yes equity, that word some people are now trying to paint as a negative when really it is anything but. A valid concern with KOGE is how it would handle programs and services designed to address systemic disparities which pose a risk of being undervalued if their benefits are not immediately quantifiable in economic terms, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities. Further, without explicit inclusion of diverse perspectives in the evaluation process, the unique needs of marginalized groups might be overlooked. This oversight can result in recommendations that do not account for the challenges faced by these communities, leading to policies that are not inclusive.

A more tangible fear I hold relates to an office I hold dear to my heart. As the former Executive Director of the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights, I value the mission and purpose of the agency. Past state budgets, not so much. And I know firsthand the importance of the work being done there to this day. When we can look to the federal model of DOGE that has used an approach that seems kind to call “control find” as its guiding practice, I fear what happens to an agency that’s main mission is to “safeguard all individuals within the state from discrimination.” When the federal version is closing buildings referencing the Civil Rights Movement or looking for things that use the word women, or Black, or queer and laying them out for more scrutiny—what happens with an agency tasked with protecting people who are discriminated against for being a woman, or Black, or queer? Does KOGE make it easier to fire or choose to not hire a queer or Black applicant? Even if that isn’t the intention, the chilling effect on the work of an agency can be pretty severe. On top of open discrimination, this can lead to increased unemployment among populations already facing employment challenges.

Kentucky rarely leads on things outside of bourbon, basketball, and horses. The desire to be one of the first states to emulate DOGE at the state level is befuddling. Why rush? State legislatures already have sweeping authority to monitor and provide oversight of the same things KOGE seeks to address. Does it have a cool name that gets a tweet, sorry X, from Elon Musk? Probably not, but the purpose can be carried out without endangering vital services to marginalized communities. But then again, isn’t it super-efficient to have multiple offices doing the same thing?