Reorganization Of Interior Has Not Produced Promised Results, Says PEER

Why It Matters

The failed reorganization highlights potential waste of taxpayer dollars and undermines operational capacity of agencies that manage public lands, raising concerns about future federal efficiency initiatives.

Key Takeaways

• Burgum moved ~5,000 staff to Secretary’s Office in 2025
• FOIA request found no records of any cost savings
• Bureaus incurred surcharge fees for each transferred position
• National Park Service faces staffing cuts amid reorganization
• PEER labels the move maladministration with no financial benefit

Pulse Analysis

The Department of the Interior, under newly appointed Secretary Doug Burgum, embarked on an ambitious restructuring in April 2025 that shifted about 5,000 administrative, information‑technology and communications employees from line bureaus into the central Office of the Secretary. Such centralization is often sold as a way to streamline processes, eliminate duplicate functions, and generate taxpayer savings. In practice, the move coincided with ongoing staff reductions at the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, raising questions about whether the reorganization was driven by genuine efficiency goals or political motives to tighten control over public‑land management.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility obtained a Freedom of Information Act response that showed the Interior Department could not produce any records documenting either the projected cost savings or the financial charges levied on the affected bureaus. The absence of documentation is striking because federal reorganizations typically require detailed cost‑benefit analyses and audit trails. This lack of transparency hampers congressional oversight and fuels skepticism among watchdog groups that the reorganization may have been a fiscal façade, masking administrative disruption without delivering measurable savings.

The fallout extends beyond spreadsheets. Bureaus now face surcharge fees for each transferred staffer, effectively draining already thin operating budgets while the National Park Service grapples with a quarter‑staff reduction and a surge in superintendent vacancies. Employee morale suffers when positions are shuffled without clear justification, potentially impairing the agency’s ability to protect and maintain public lands. As the interior reorganization stalls without evidence of benefit, policymakers and stakeholders will likely demand stricter accountability standards for future federal restructuring efforts.