Massive Interior Reorganization Fails to Deliver Promised Savings, Agency Lacks Records of Significant Efficiencies

One year after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum initiated what was billed as the largest reorganization in the agency’s history, the Interior Department has admitted it possesses no records demonstrating the promised efficiencies from the restructuring, according to documents obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The reorganization, announced on April 17, 2025, involved transferring approximately 5,000 administrative, information technology, and communications staff from various bureaus—including the National Park Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management—to the Office of the Secretary. Burgum’s Secretarial Order stated the move would “create significant efficiencies across the Department by improving processes and eliminating redundant efforts.”

However, after PEER submitted a FOIA request on June 6, 2025, seeking information about cost savings to taxpayers and costs assessed to individual bureaus, the Interior Department initially provided only fragmentary, highly redacted documents. When PEER filed a federal lawsuit in November 2025 to compel full compliance, the agency ultimately concluded in an April 15, 2026 letter that it “completed [its] search of the records and [has] determined that [it does] not have any records responsive” to the two key points of the request.

No records were located documenting either the anticipated cost savings or the financial impact on constituent bureaus resulting from the reorganization effort. The Interior Department’s inability to produce evidence supporting its efficiency claims comes despite the stated goal of the restructuring to eliminate redundancies and generate substantial savings for taxpayers.

This development follows earlier reports from September 2025 indicating the Interior Department was preparing reduction in force lists as it planned significant personnel cuts across its workforce, including delays due to legal challenges that temporarily blocked layoff initiatives before being overturned by judicial rulings.