John Cassidy, writing for The New Yorker (requires a free account to read, annoyingly):

Of course, these calculations can’t be taken literally. Even Musk has said that he wants to protect essential workers. If the entire federal workforce were eliminated, there’d be no one to make sure that federal benefits got paid or that federal taxes were collected. The spending and revenue figures would crater; essential services like veterans’ hospitals, air-traffic-control systems, and border-crossing stations would be completely abandoned. But this thought experiment does illustrate the point that “bloated” payrolls aren’t what is driving federal spending and deficits. Since the nineteen-seventies, as the accompanying chart shows, the total number of federal employees has remained fairly steady.

Here’s a copy of the chart. Cassidy continues:

Unlike the figures from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the chart, which comes from the Federal Reserve Economic Database, counts members of the U.S. Postal Service as federal employees. It does show that the federal workforce has grown in recent years, but it’s still no larger than it was thirty or forty years ago. During the interim, total employment elsewhere in the economy has grown steadily alongside population growth. Consequently, the size of the federal workforce relative to the workforce at large has fallen considerably, as the following chart shows.

Here’s a copy of that second chart.

I knew the supposed justifications for the whole DOGE endeavor were a sham, but until this piece I was under the incorrect assumption that the federal government workforce has been growing steadily for decades, at least keeping pace with its percentage of the overall US workforce. The opposite is true — because the federal workforce size has remained steady while the population has continued to grow, its share of the overall workforce has in fact shrunk considerably.