Large Language Models Can Be a Viable Substitute for Expert Political Surveys When a Shock Disrupts Traditional Measurement Approaches

TL;DR

This paper demonstrates that large language models can effectively substitute expert political surveys in the aftermath of disruptive shocks, providing rapid insights into perceptions and factors associated with the event.

Contribution

It introduces a method using LLMs to derive political ideology scores and analyze perceptions, offering a new approach when traditional surveys are infeasible.

Findings

LLMs replicate pre-shock expert measures of agency ideology

LLMs predict which agencies were targeted by the shock

Perceptions of knowledge institutions influence agency targeting

Abstract

After a disruptive event or shock, such as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) federal layoffs of 2025, expert judgments are colored by knowledge of the outcome. This can make it difficult or impossible to reconstruct the pre-event perceptions needed to study the factors associated with the event. This position paper argues that large language models (LLMs), trained on vast amounts of digital media data, can be a viable substitute for expert political surveys when a shock disrupts traditional measurement. We analyze the DOGE layoffs as a specific case study for this position. We use pairwise comparison prompts with LLMs and derive ideology scores for federal executive agencies. These scores replicate pre-layoff expert measures and predict which agencies were targeted by DOGE. We also use this same approach and find that the perceptions of certain federal agencies as knowledge institutions predict which agencies were targeted by DOGE, even when controlling for ideology. This case study demonstrates that using LLMs allows us to rapidly and easily test the associated factors hypothesized behind the shock. More broadly, our case study of this recent event exemplifies how LLMs offer insights into the correlational factors of the shock when traditional measurement techniques fail. We conclude by proposing a two-part criterion for when researchers can turn to LLMs as a substitute for expert political surveys.