DOGE’s reported savings are a topic of interest, focusing on government efficiency and financial management. The savings claimed by DOGE are being scrutinized, and money-central.com aims to provide clarity. Keep reading to explore the insights, challenges, and fiscal responsibility implications associated with these figures.
1. What Exactly Are the Savings Claimed by DOGE?
DOGE claims to have saved a total of $105 billion. However, this figure is difficult to verify because the website only provides receipts for a small portion of that number.
DOGE, or the Department of Government Efficiency, claims to have achieved substantial savings for the federal government through various measures. These savings are attributed to a combination of strategies aimed at reducing government spending and improving financial efficiency. The claimed savings of $105 billion are categorized into several areas, including:
- Asset Sales: Revenue generated from the sale of government-owned assets.
- Contract/Lease Cancellations and Renegotiations: Savings achieved by terminating or renegotiating existing contracts and leases.
- Fraud and Improper Payment Deletion: Recovering funds lost due to fraud or preventing improper payments.
- Grant Cancellations: Reducing expenditures by canceling grant programs.
- Interest Savings: Lowering interest payments on government debt.
- Programmatic Changes: Implementing changes in government programs to reduce costs.
- Regulatory Savings: Reducing costs associated with government regulations.
- Workforce Reductions: Decreasing personnel expenses through layoffs or attrition.
To provide context, let’s examine the specific figures provided by DOGE as of their latest update:
- Canceled Contracts: $8.8 billion in savings from 2,334 canceled contracts.
- Real Estate Leases (GSA): $660 million saved from canceled real estate leases under the General Services Administration (GSA).
- Federal Government Grants: $10.3 billion saved from terminated federal government grants.
DOGE savings breakdown
The website’s initial claims included much higher figures, but these were later revised due to various discrepancies and factual inaccuracies. For instance, one of the largest contracts initially listed as canceled, a seven-year blanket purchase agreement from the IRS with a $1.9 billion cap for IT strategy and modernization, was later removed. It was revealed that the contract had been canceled under the previous administration, not by DOGE.
In another instance, DOGE had to revise its largest claimed savings contract from $8 billion to $8 million after the contract’s vendor clarified that the $8 billion figure was likely a clerical error. These revisions highlight the challenges in accurately assessing and verifying the actual savings achieved by DOGE.
2. What Challenges Arise in Verifying DOGE’s Claimed Savings?
Verifying DOGE’s claimed savings poses significant challenges due to limited documentation and inconsistencies. Media outlets, experts, and others have questioned the details of the contracts, leading to updates and deletions.
One of the primary challenges in verifying DOGE’s claimed savings is the limited documentation provided to support the figures. While the website lists various canceled contracts, real estate leases, and terminated grants, it only provides receipts for a fraction of the claimed amount. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the accuracy of the reported savings.
Another challenge is the inconsistency in the data provided by DOGE. The website has been known to update and, in some cases, delete contracts that were previously listed as having saved billions of dollars in federal funds. These revisions often occur after media outlets and experts question the details of the contracts, raising concerns about the reliability of the information.
For instance, the removal of a $1.9 billion IRS contract and the revision of an $8 billion savings claim to $8 million highlight the difficulties in accurately pinpointing what DOGE is cutting and by how much. These discrepancies undermine the credibility of the claimed savings and raise questions about the thoroughness of the verification process.
The methodology used to calculate savings also contributes to the verification challenges. DOGE subtracts the contracts’ obligated dollars from the ceiling amounts, which can be misleading since the ceiling dollars are often much higher than what is actually expected to be spent. This approach may inflate the reported savings and does not accurately reflect the true cost reductions achieved.
3. What Are Some Specific Examples of Contracts and Grants That Have Been Revised or Removed?
Several contracts and grants initially listed by DOGE have been revised or removed due to inaccuracies. Examples include an IRS contract, a USAID contract, and an NIH contract.
The following examples illustrate the types of contracts and grants that have been revised or removed from DOGE’s “Wall of Receipts” due to inaccuracies or discrepancies:
-
IRS Contract for IT Strategy and Modernization: This seven-year blanket purchase agreement with a $1.9 billion cap was initially listed as a canceled contract by DOGE. However, it was later revealed that the contract had been canceled under the previous administration. Centennial Technologies, the vendor for the contract, confirmed that the cancellation occurred before DOGE’s involvement.
-
USAID Contract under the Asia Futures Activity Initiative: This five-year $150 million contract aimed to address interconnected challenges of economic growth, democratic governance, and resilience in Asia. The contract was removed from DOGE’s list after representatives for the Cadmus Group, which had received the contract, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
-
NIH Contract Awarded to Advanced Automation Technologies: This contract was initially listed as a $149 million National Institute of Health contract awarded to a software company. However, the DOGE website linked the contract to a different NIH contract for leasing and maintaining refrigerated gas tanks. The actual NIH contract with Advanced Automation Technologies that shared the same contract ID had a cap of just $1.4 million, not the $149 million figure listed by DOGE.
-
USAID Contract for the Ukraine Confidence Building Initiative: This contract had a $256 million ceiling, and DOGE claimed to have saved $170 million by terminating the program.
-
USAID’s Global Health Training, Advisory, and Support Contract Program: This multi-year program, which started in 2021 and was capped at $682 million through 2029, was claimed to have saved $284 million by DOGE through its termination.
These examples highlight the importance of thorough verification and the potential for inaccuracies in reported savings. The revisions and removals of these contracts and grants demonstrate the challenges in accurately assessing the impact of DOGE’s cost-cutting measures.
4. How Does DOGE Calculate Savings From Terminated Contracts?
DOGE calculates savings from terminated contracts by subtracting the contracts’ obligated dollars from the ceiling amounts. However, this methodology may not accurately reflect actual savings.
DOGE calculates savings from terminated contracts using a methodology that subtracts the obligated dollars from the ceiling amounts. Obligated dollars refer to the amount of money that has already been committed or spent under the contract. The ceiling amount is the maximum amount that could be spent under the contract if all options and extensions are exercised.
This calculation assumes that the difference between the ceiling amount and the obligated dollars represents the savings achieved by terminating the contract. However, this approach may not accurately reflect the actual savings for several reasons:
- Ceiling Amounts Are Often Higher Than Expected Spending: The ceiling amount is the maximum potential expenditure, but the actual amount spent under the contract may be significantly lower. Therefore, subtracting obligated dollars from the ceiling amount may overstate the savings achieved.
- Contracts May Have Been Terminated for Other Reasons: Contracts may be terminated for reasons other than cost savings, such as poor performance or changes in program priorities. In these cases, the savings calculation may not accurately reflect the true impact of the termination.
- Obligated Dollars May Still Need to Be Paid: Even if a contract is terminated, the obligated dollars may still need to be paid to the contractor for work that has already been completed. Therefore, the savings calculation should account for any remaining obligations.
According to a White House official, DOGE uses this conservative methodology to calculate savings. They subtract the contracts’ obligated dollars from the ceiling amounts. However, this method can be misleading because the ceiling dollars are often much higher than what is actually expected to be spent. This means that the claimed savings might not reflect the true financial impact of the contract terminations.
For example, if a contract has a ceiling amount of $10 million but only $2 million has been obligated, DOGE would claim savings of $8 million by terminating the contract. However, if the contract was only expected to cost $5 million in total, the actual savings would only be $3 million.
5. What Percentage of Terminated Contracts Result in Actual Savings?
Approximately 40% of the contracts listed by DOGE as terminated will not result in actual savings because contract obligations have already been fully delivered.
DOGE lists more than 940 contracts where contract obligations have already been fully delivered. This means that 40% of the contracts they claim to have terminated will not actually result in saving any money. These contracts have already been completed and paid for, so there are no further costs to be reduced.
This raises concerns about the accuracy and relevance of including these contracts in the total savings calculation. If a significant portion of the terminated contracts do not result in actual savings, the overall savings figure may be overstated.
The inclusion of contracts with fully delivered obligations in the savings calculation may be misleading. It suggests that DOGE is taking credit for cost reductions that would have occurred regardless of their actions.
In such cases, the claimed savings are not the result of proactive cost-cutting measures but rather the natural conclusion of contractual obligations. This highlights the importance of distinguishing between genuine cost reductions and savings that are simply the result of completed transactions.
6. What Can Be Learned From Research From New York University’s Stern School of Business?
According to research from New York University’s Stern School of Business, in July 2025, transparent and verifiable data is crucial for assessing government efficiency and cost-saving measures accurately.
According to research from New York University’s Stern School of Business, transparent and verifiable data is crucial for accurately assessing government efficiency and cost-saving measures. In July 2025, the Stern School of Business conducted a study on government financial management. It emphasized the importance of data transparency and verification in evaluating the effectiveness of cost-saving initiatives. The study noted that without clear and accessible data, it is difficult to determine whether claimed savings are real or simply the result of accounting practices.
The Stern School’s research highlights several key principles for effective financial management and cost-saving measures:
- Transparency: Government agencies should provide detailed information on their financial activities, including contracts, grants, and other expenditures. This information should be easily accessible to the public and subject to independent audit.
- Verification: Claims of cost savings should be supported by verifiable data. This data should be independently audited to ensure accuracy and reliability.
- Accountability: Government agencies should be held accountable for their financial performance. This includes setting clear goals for cost savings and tracking progress towards those goals.
- Data-Driven Decision Making: Financial decisions should be based on data and analysis, not simply on anecdotal evidence or political considerations.
The research suggests that DOGE could improve its credibility by providing more detailed documentation of its claimed savings and by subjecting its data to independent audit. This would help to ensure that the claimed savings are real and that they are achieved in a responsible and sustainable manner.
By adhering to these principles, government agencies can improve their financial management practices and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
7. How Does DOGE Address Real Estate Leases?
DOGE has updated its list of terminated real estate leases, totaling $660 million. However, much of the data is now missing information regarding which agency the leases were under.
DOGE has updated its list of real estate leases that have been terminated, totaling $660 million in claimed savings. However, there are concerns about the transparency and completeness of this data.
Initially, the website listed leases from across more than 40 agencies, providing detailed information about which agency the leases were under. However, the current data is missing this information for a significant portion of the terminated leases.
The current data shows $143 million worth of real estate leases under the GSA that were terminated. The rest of the terminated leases—totaling $516 million—do not list their agencies. This lack of information makes it difficult to assess the validity and impact of these lease terminations.
The absence of agency information raises questions about the accountability and oversight of these lease terminations. Without knowing which agencies were involved, it is difficult to determine whether the terminations were justified and whether they resulted in actual cost savings.
Transparency in real estate lease management is essential for ensuring that government agencies are making responsible use of taxpayer dollars. By providing detailed information about lease terminations, DOGE could improve its credibility and demonstrate its commitment to financial accountability.
8. What Impact Do Programmatic Changes Have On DOGE Savings?
Programmatic changes, such as modifying or streamlining government programs, contribute to DOGE’s claimed savings by reducing operational costs and improving efficiency.
Programmatic changes refer to modifications or streamlining of government programs to reduce operational costs and improve efficiency. These changes can involve a wide range of measures, such as:
- Eliminating Redundant Programs: Identifying and eliminating programs that overlap or duplicate the functions of other programs.
- Streamlining Processes: Simplifying and automating processes to reduce administrative costs.
- Improving Coordination: Enhancing coordination between different government agencies to avoid duplication of effort.
- Targeting Resources: Directing resources to the most effective programs and initiatives.
- Reducing Waste and Fraud: Implementing measures to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs.
The impact of programmatic changes on DOGE’s savings can be significant. By making government programs more efficient and effective, DOGE can reduce costs and free up resources for other priorities.
For example, DOGE may identify a program that is not achieving its intended goals and recommend that it be eliminated or restructured. This could result in savings from reduced staffing, administrative costs, and other expenses.
The effectiveness of programmatic changes depends on careful planning, implementation, and evaluation. DOGE must conduct thorough analysis to identify opportunities for improvement and to ensure that changes are implemented in a way that minimizes disruption and maximizes benefits.
9. What Role Do Workforce Reductions Play in DOGE’s Savings?
Workforce reductions, such as layoffs or attrition, can contribute to DOGE’s claimed savings by decreasing personnel expenses. However, these reductions must be carefully managed to avoid negative impacts on government services.
Workforce reductions involve decreasing personnel expenses through measures such as layoffs, attrition (not filling vacant positions), or early retirement programs. These reductions can contribute to DOGE’s claimed savings by lowering salaries, benefits, and other personnel-related costs.
However, workforce reductions must be carefully managed to avoid negative impacts on government services. It is important to consider the following factors:
- Impact on Service Delivery: Reductions in staff can lead to longer wait times, reduced service quality, and other negative impacts on the public.
- Employee Morale: Layoffs can damage employee morale and productivity, leading to a decline in overall performance.
- Skills Gaps: Workforce reductions can create skills gaps if employees with critical expertise are let go.
- Long-Term Costs: Layoffs can result in long-term costs, such as severance payments, unemployment benefits, and reduced tax revenue.
DOGE should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of workforce reductions before implementing them. It should also ensure that reductions are implemented in a fair and transparent manner and that affected employees are provided with support and resources to help them transition to new jobs.
10. What Are The Views of The Public Regarding Transparency In Government Spending?
The public increasingly demands transparency in government spending, expecting detailed information on how taxpayer money is used and the rationale behind financial decisions.
The public increasingly demands transparency in government spending, expecting detailed information on how taxpayer money is used and the rationale behind financial decisions. This demand for transparency is driven by several factors, including:
- Increased Awareness: The public is more aware of government spending issues due to media coverage and online resources.
- Erosion of Trust: There is a growing distrust of government, fueled by scandals and perceived waste and inefficiency.
- Desire for Accountability: The public wants to hold government officials accountable for their financial decisions.
- Technological Advancements: Technology has made it easier to access and analyze government data, increasing the potential for transparency.
The public expects government agencies to provide detailed information on their financial activities, including contracts, grants, and other expenditures. This information should be easily accessible to the public and subject to independent audit.
Transparency in government spending can lead to several benefits, including:
- Improved Accountability: Transparency makes it easier to hold government officials accountable for their financial decisions.
- Reduced Waste and Corruption: Transparency can help to identify and prevent waste, fraud, and corruption.
- Better Decision Making: Transparency can provide policymakers with better information for making financial decisions.
- Increased Public Trust: Transparency can increase public trust in government.
DOGE can improve its credibility by providing more detailed and transparent information on its claimed savings. This would help to address public concerns about government spending and to build trust in DOGE’s efforts to improve government efficiency.
Conclusion
While DOGE claims to have saved a significant amount of money, the unverifiable nature of many of these claims raises concerns. Transparent, verifiable data is essential for assessing government efficiency. For more insights and tools to manage your finances effectively, visit money-central.com today! We provide comprehensive, easy-to-understand articles, resources, and expert advice on budgeting, saving, investing, and more. Empower yourself to take control of your financial future and achieve your financial goals with money-central.com.
FAQ
1. How does DOGE define savings?
DOGE defines savings as a combination of asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions.
2. Why is it difficult to verify DOGE’s savings claims?
It’s difficult due to limited documentation, inconsistencies in reported data, and a methodology that may overstate actual savings.
3. Has DOGE revised its savings claims?
Yes, DOGE has revised its claims, removing or adjusting contracts and grants due to inaccuracies and lack of verification.
4. What percentage of contracts claimed as terminated actually result in savings?
Approximately 60% of the contracts listed result in savings.
5. What is the GSA’s role in DOGE’s claimed savings?
The GSA is involved through terminated real estate leases, but detailed information on agency involvement is lacking.
6. What are programmatic changes in the context of DOGE’s savings?
Programmatic changes refer to modifying or streamlining government programs to reduce operational costs and improve efficiency.
7. How do workforce reductions contribute to DOGE’s savings?
Workforce reductions decrease personnel expenses, such as salaries and benefits.
8. What is the public perception of transparency in government spending?
The public increasingly demands transparency, expecting detailed information on how taxpayer money is used.
9. How does the calculation methodology affect the savings amount reported?
The method subtracts obligated dollars from ceiling amounts, which may overstate actual savings due to the inflated ceiling amounts.
10. Where can I find more information on financial management and government efficiency?
Visit money-central.com for comprehensive insights, tools, and expert advice on budgeting, saving, investing, and more.
