In This Article
Over the past few years, the notion of government “efficiency” has taken on renewed urgency in the United States, thanks to growing deficits, heightened public scrutiny of federal spending, and the ascendance of a lean-government agenda. At the heart of that push stands the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — a body tasked with identifying and eliminating waste, duplication, and “inefficiencies” across federal agencies.
However, questions remain about how those figures are calculated, what’s really being cut, and at what cost. This article explores what DOGE is, how much it claims to have saved, and the broader ramifications of its approach to fiscal discipline.
What is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is a relatively new entity in the US federal government designed to oversee and implement cost-cutting across a broad swathe of agencies. The DOGE team is small, largely composed of young engineers—many with private-sector backgrounds—and was created with the goal of identifying large-scale savings in federal spending.
The DOGE mission statement, in simplest terms, is to root out “wasteful or fraudulent government spending,” terminate or renegotiate contracts and leases deemed unnecessary, reduce staffing or workforce costs, and apply technology and process reforms to improve government operations.
However, according to independent observers, the enterprise is controversial. The way DOGE defines “savings,” the transparency of its calculation, and the broader consequences of its cuts have all attracted scrutiny.
How much did DOGE claim to save — and what’s the reality?
DOGE announced at one point that it delivered approximately $55 billion in savings through a mix of contract cancellations, workforce reductions, lease terminations, asset sales, and other measures. Later, it claimed savings of more than $160 billion through its push to root out wasteful or fraudulent spending. Among the targets of its cost-cutting were small federal contracts, leases for under-utilised real estate, and redundancies across multiple agencies. In November of 2025, DOGE claims to have saved close to $215 billion.
While DOGE claims impressive results, analysts still warn that much of the reported savings may not be real or verifiable. Roughly 40% of the contracts cancelled by DOGE were expected to yield no actual savings because they were already fully obligated or paid out.
In some instances, contract savings were overstated—for example, a deal initially valued at $8 billion was later corrected to only $8 million. One analysis concluded that “DOGE says it has saved $160 billion. Those cuts have cost taxpayers $135 billion,” which suggests that what appears as savings could in fact be offset by hidden costs.
Critics also point out that DOGE’s accounting method defines savings by the potential value of cancelled contracts—the maximum ceiling—rather than the actual amounts the government had paid or committed, calling into question the reliability of its headline numbers.
In short, DOGE’s official narrative points out huge savings achieved, but independent checks suggest that while some savings may be real, many claims remain unverified or contested.
What kinds of savings has DOGE targeted?
DOGE’s initiatives have focused on several key areas. One major pillar involves contract cancellations and renegotiations. The department even maintains a “Wall of Receipts,” a public-facing list of hundreds of federal contracts, leases, and grants it claims to have terminated to save taxpayer money.
Another area of focus has been lease terminations and real-estate optimization. DOGE has terminated leases for under-utilized offices and sought to consolidate agency space to lower costs. For example, one lease for a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture in Topeka, Kansas, was terminated, reportedly saving nearly $1 million in annual rent.
Workforce reductions represent another major component of DOGE’s cost-cutting strategy. The agency has encouraged shutdowns of redundant roles, offered buyouts, and implemented early retirement programs. Reports indicate that hundreds of thousands of federal employees have taken buyouts or early retirements as part of DOGE-related initiatives.
Why the figures are contested — and what to watch
One reason the reported figures are disputed lies in DOGE’s definition of “savings.” The department often uses the maximum potential value of a cancelled contract—the so-called “ceiling”—rather than the actual amount the government had paid or committed. This approach naturally inflates its headline numbers and makes its achievements appear bigger than they might be in practice.
DOGE’s reported savings per department
Another issue arises from the inclusion of already-used funds in DOGE’s calculations. Some contracts that were cancelled had already been fully obligated and paid, meaning their cancellation produced no real savings. In some analyses, hundreds of contracts listed by DOGE showed zero actual savings because the funds were already spent.
Operational hidden costs also complicate the picture. While cutting staff or terminating programs may yield savings on paper, such measures can generate indirect costs, including reduced productivity, higher overtime expenses in other departments, and degraded public services. Some analysts have suggested that DOGE’s cuts could ultimately cost taxpayers as much as $135 billion when these secondary effects are taken into account.
There are also concerns about the sustainability and depth of DOGE’s approach. Some of its cuts represent easy wins—like eliminating low-use contracts—but whether these translate into long-term structural savings is uncertain. Finally, critics argue that DOGE’s accounting lacks transparency and is difficult for independent watchdogs or auditors to verify, raising questions about the accuracy of its reported figures.
Conclusion
The Department of Government Efficiency is a high-profile example of the belief that big portions of federal spending can be trimmed—through contract cancellations, lease terminations, and workforce reductions—and that such measures automatically translate into genuine savings. On paper, DOGE’s claims of tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars in savings appear impressive. Yet beneath the surface, the definitions of “savings,” the timing of payments, and the indirect costs of cuts complicate the story.
