The Curious Case of the Department of Government Efficiency: Savings or Smoke and Mirrors?
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the very agency tasked with meticulously auditing the entirety of the federal government for instances of "waste," appears to be struggling with a fundamental principle: keeping accurate records. A series of embarrassing revisions and retractions have cast a significant shadow of doubt on DOGE’s claims of substantial taxpayer savings, raising questions about the agency’s competence, transparency, and overall effectiveness.
The latest incident, revealed by the New York Times, involved a sweeping overnight alteration of DOGE’s publicly reported contract cancellations. More than 40% of the over 1,000 contracts initially touted as savings were either changed or removed entirely. Alarmingly, this included the outright deletion of five of the seven largest contracts that DOGE had previously claimed to have successfully cut.
While this might seem like an isolated incident, it’s part of a disturbing pattern. Just the week before, DOGE had to retract all five of its largest claimed "savings" after even a cursory investigation revealed significant misrepresentations regarding the supposedly canceled contracts. It appears that basic due diligence is not a priority within this agency, which begs the question of whether the "efficiency" it is trying to impose is just for show and not for real.
The specifics of these retractions are particularly troubling. For example, DOGE took credit for canceling a $1.9 billion contract for IRS tech support. In reality, the Biden administration had already canceled the contract months prior, a fact conveniently omitted by DOGE. A similar situation unfolded with a $133 million contract related to USAID work in Libya. Again, DOGE claimed credit for a cancellation that had occurred long before its involvement. And a $149 million contract, purportedly for administrative assistants at the Department of Health and Human Services, was linked to an entirely different contract with a different company and a different amount. This level of inaccuracy suggests either profound incompetence or a deliberate attempt to inflate savings figures.
These are not isolated "oopsies." The growing list of mistakes includes a major error where an $8 million contract was erroneously reported as an $8 billion saving. A $655 million cut to USAID was, inexplicably, counted three times. And a supposed $232 million cut at the Social Security Administration actually involved a reduction of only $560,000 within a larger contract. The accumulation of these errors paints a picture of an agency struggling to perform its core function.
Even DOGE’s leader acknowledged that the agency "will make mistakes," but the sheer frequency and magnitude of these errors are starting to suggest that inaccuracies are not merely accidental but are becoming a defining characteristic of the agency’s operations.
The consequences of these inaccuracies are significant. DOGE initially claimed to have saved $16 billion just last week, but after the revisions, that number has shrunk to below $9 billion. And even that revised figure relies on the assumption that all remaining contract cuts are accurately represented. Further undermining DOGE’s credibility, NPR reported that $46.5 billion of the agency’s initial $55 billion in reported savings lacked specifically documented sources. This raises serious concerns about the validity of the agency’s claimed accomplishments.
The elephant in the room is the cost of running DOGE. The lack of transparency surrounding the agency’s budget makes it difficult to assess whether its claimed savings outweigh its operational expenses. If DOGE is spending vast sums of money to generate questionable savings figures, then the entire exercise becomes counterproductive. At some point it becomes cheaper to do nothing than to have this agency chasing its tail.
Beyond the numbers, the conduct and reported culture of DOGE raise concerns about its effectiveness and credibility. Anecdotal accounts suggest a frat house environment instead of a professional agency dedicated to serious governmental oversite. Some reports describe an environment filled with immature individuals more interested in online antics than in serious government work. Such an environment can hardly foster the type of meticulousness and accountability required for effective oversight of federal spending.
The situation with DOGE highlights the critical importance of independent verification and robust oversight of government agencies. The agency’s initial claims were accepted at face value, but closer scrutiny revealed significant inaccuracies. This suggests a need for increased scrutiny of all government agencies, especially those involved in financial oversight. The public deserves to have confidence in the accuracy of the information provided by government agencies, and that confidence can only be maintained through rigorous oversight and accountability.
The Department of Government Efficiency was created with the noble goal of eliminating waste and inefficiency in government spending. However, its current performance raises serious questions about its ability to fulfill that mandate. Unless DOGE can demonstrate a significant improvement in accuracy, transparency, and accountability, it risks becoming a symbol of the very problems it was intended to solve. The agency needs to prioritize accuracy over self-promotion, transparency over obfuscation, and genuine efficiency over the illusion of savings. Only then can it regain public trust and effectively serve its intended purpose.
Ultimately, the fate of DOGE may depend on its willingness to embrace a culture of accountability and prioritize the interests of taxpayers over its own self-image. Otherwise, it may be remembered as an expensive and embarrassing experiment that failed to deliver on its promises.
