My two cents. God-mode privilege already existed before DOGE, someone else had (or still has) this privilege. Priority - How to limit power of such privilege in future.

Often what you'll find is that the power was limited through separation of privileges. One person would not be able to do much beyond a limited boundary. Sounds like that's no longer true.

This further emphasizes a need that is only growing: addressing the disparity between our government's reliance on technology and its members' understanding of it. Government and technology are inexorably linked at a fundamental level. Take data for example. Data is inherently untrustworthy if sufficient measures are not taken to ensure its integrity while being recorded, its integrity while being maintained, the integrity of its interpretation, and the integrity of its further utilization.

We need political pressure to design these systems correctly to avoid "god mode" nonsense, and for that we need politicians who understand and embrace the technological need. If the system is designed correctly you don't need "god mode" access to conduct an audit or even to make lasting changes. Their changes should be non-destructive writes, with an audit trail.

Also, I'm going to need more information than "god mode". God mode over which specific databases? And what specific access levels? And which admin granted the permissions? If DOGE is serious about transparency they will communicate this sort of thing.

Yes, and the chances of that person being technically smarter than the DOGE is close to zero.