Kevin O'Leary isn't holding back when it comes to the Department of Government Efficiency. The O'Leary Ventures chairman made it clear in a recent CNN's "NewsNight with Abby Phillip" interview that he believes the newly formed government entity isn't cutting spending fast enough. 

"I think the issue is they're not whacking enough," O'Leary said. He compared the situation to private equity, where, in his experience, struggling companies bounce back better when deeper cuts are made upfront. "Always cut deeper, harder when there's fat and waste," he added.

Don't Miss:

DOGE, led by Elon Musk under President Donald Trump, was created through an executive order and is tasked with trimming federal spending over the next 18 months. While Musk and Trump have championed the initiative as a necessary push for efficiency, it has drawn criticism over its impact, legal standing, and approach to federal workforce reductions.

Is DOGE Cutting Too Much or Not Enough?

O'Leary isn't just advocating for spending cuts—he's pushing for drastic reductions. "They're not cutting enough. Keep slashing. Keep hacking," he urged, arguing that now is the time for bold action before the next election cycle.

According to Fox News, DOGE has already identified $55 billion in cost savings, with a goal of cutting $2 trillion by mid-2026. But critics argue that the numbers are exaggerated and lack clear methodology.

Trump has praised Musk's work with DOGE, calling it possibly the most important thing Musk has done. However, opposition to DOGE is growing. Attorneys general from 14 states have sued to block the department from accessing federal data, claiming it represents illegal executive overreach. 

Trending: The average American couple has saved this much money for retirement — How do you compare?

And that's not the only legal trouble—the agency recently won a case that allowed it to continue reviewing sensitive financial data from multiple federal departments, despite challenges over privacy concerns.

Some lawmakers are also pushing back, with Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN) describing it on X as “the ultimate d**k boss move,” emphasizing her support for workers over “billionaire a**hole bosses.”

This kind of clash isn't new. Historically, major government reform efforts have had mixed results. The 1990s "Reinventing Government" initiative, which cut over 400,000 federal jobs and saved $146 billion, was seen as a success largely because it gained bipartisan support. 

See Also: If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends would you invest in it?

According to AP, that initiative worked because it focused on efficiency rather than drastic workforce reductions. DOGE, on the other hand, has been criticized for its aggressive firings and lack of transparency.

Despite the backlash, O'Leary stands by his view that DOGE's cuts need to go deeper. He described government agencies as "big fat chickens" dripping over "barbecues of fat" and doubled down on his belief that no role should be safe if it doesn't demonstrate clear value. 

Meanwhile, Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute has warned that DOGE's approach could cause long-term damage to essential services rather than improving efficiency, calling it "a bad-faith effort rooted in ignorance and a knee-jerk desire to shrink the federal government."

Read Next: