Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): Goals, Implementation, and Outcomes
A Look at the Controversial Elon Musk Program
Related Articles: Tech Bros and Communism, Musk vs Trump, Musk on Drugs, The Budget Deficit, and Tesla Fraud.
By the Numbers: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was launched in early 2025 with the ambitious promise of slashing wasteful federal spending. Touted by President Donald Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk, DOGE aimed to modernize government IT, maximize productivity, and eliminate wasteful spending. Musk initially boasted targets of cutting $2 trillion (nearly one-third of the budget) before revising down to $1 trillion and then $150 billion – still lofty goals unlikely to be met. As of mid-2025, DOGE claims to have "saved" tens of billions; however, independent analyses and watchdog reports paint a very different picture of its actual impact on costs and governance.
Origins and Goals of DOGE
DOGE was conceived during the lead-up to Trump’s second term, reportedly born from discussions between Donald Trump and Elon Musk in 2024. It was formally established by executive order on January 20, 2025 – the first day of the new administration – signaling how high a priority “government efficiency” would be. Officially, the stated mission was to root out fraud, waste, and abuse in federal agencies, using Musk’s business acumen and technology focus to streamline operations. A White House fact sheet described the initiative as a “cost efficiency” push: agencies were directed to immediately review all contracts and grants for waste, fraud, and abuse and work with DOGE teams to terminate unnecessary contracts. The executive order also called for making government expenditures (like payments and travel) more transparent and disposing of excess federal property. In short, DOGE’s goal was to discipline a “wasteful system” by cutting costs and promoting merit over what Trump’s order derided as the "DEI" priorities of the previous administration.
While the name “DOGE” initially invited skepticism (drawing comparisons to the Doge internet meme and cryptocurrency Dogecoin), the appointment of Elon Musk as its figurehead gave the project a high-profile cachet. Musk – still CEO of Tesla and SpaceX – was positioned as an outsider who would shake up Washington’s bureaucracy. He spoke of saving hundreds of billions for taxpayers by applying Silicon Valley efficiency. As the program rolled out, Musk’s team embedded “DOGE leads” in numerous agencies, effectively installing political appointees or allies in key CIO and oversight roles. These operatives were granted broad access to federal IT systems and contracting data, with the authority to flag and cancel projects deemed wasteful. The DOGE initiative was structured as a temporary, cross-departmental task force under the Executive Office of the President, with an initial budget of about $40 million and a planned sunset date in mid-2026.
Implementation and Activities
DOGE’s implementation was rapid and often disruptive. Within days of inauguration, Musk’s DOGE deputies moved into agencies ranging from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to the General Services Administration (GSA). In one example, DOGE staff gained control over OPM databases holding records of millions of federal employees, even revoking access for senior career staff. At GSA – the procurement arm of the government – Musk confidants set up shop to scrutinize contracts government-wide. DOGE teams scoured contract ledgers, grants, and programs, compiling a public “wall of receipts” website listing purported savings. This website became a centerpiece of DOGE’s transparency claims, updated with running tallies of dollars “saved” by canceling projects, cutting jobs, or selling assets.
However, evidence soon emerged that DOGE’s methods were crude and error-prone. Reports indicate DOGE targeted a slew of programs ideologically objectionable to Trump allies, rather than the biggest budget sinks. A Reuters investigation found that Musk’s cost-cutters were focusing on agencies long disliked by conservatives – such as foreign aid, education, and consumer protection – which account for only a tiny fraction of the $7 trillion federal budget. “They are not going to go into agencies that are doing things they like. They are going into agencies they disagree with,” observed Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. In practice, DOGE agents moved swiftly to dismantle entire offices and programs: Musk bragged about shuttering two agencies outright – “one that provides a lifeline to the world’s needy and another that protects Americans from unscrupulous lenders”. These were widely understood to be the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which administers humanitarian and development aid abroad, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which regulates lending and financial abuses. Both agencies were slashed, with DOGE operatives taping over signs and closing offices as part of the cost-cutting campaign.
Outcomes: Savings Claims vs. Reality
DOGE’s aggressive cuts yielded plenty of headlines – but did they save the government money? Musk and the White House touted impressive figures, but independent analysts have found these claims greatly exaggerated, if not outright false. By late April 2025, DOGE was claiming approximately $160 billion in savings from reduced spending. Yet a nonpartisan watchdog, the Partnership for Public Service (PPS), calculated that DOGE’s actions would cost taxpayers roughly $135 billion in the same fiscal year. This staggering swing is because many “savings” were illusory or offset by new costs: for example, tens of thousands of federal workers were placed on lengthy paid leave or had to be rehired with back pay after mistaken or illegal firings, and overall productivity suffered during the upheaval. “Ultimately it’s the public that will end up paying for this,” noted Max Stier of PPS, adding that taxpayers would likely see costs grow as DOGE-driven disruptions ripple through agencies.
Indeed, specific analyses reveal a pattern of inflated savings and hidden costs. An internal DOGE report in February boasted $55 billion in cuts, but the detailed “receipts” accounted for only $16.5 billion – half of which turned out to be a typo on the DOGE website, counting an $8 million contract cancellation as $8 billion. Investigations by The New York Times and NPR uncovered other accounting tricks: DOGE’s list double- or triple-counted some projects and even included dormant contracts from decades ago. Once such errors were corrected, the verified immediate savings were as low as $2 billion – a tiny fraction of claims. DOGE continued to update its tally (reporting $165 billion by May), but still only provided documentation for a fraction of that, often counting the face value of canceled contracts rather than what would have been spent. For instance, DOGE would count the full ceiling value of a “blanket purchase agreement” as savings when that amount was never fully expended. In one egregious example, DOGE claimed $8.5 billion saved by canceling an ICE contract that was only worth $8 million; in reality, that contract had used just $3.5 million before termination. Over half of the contracts DOGE trumpeted as “canceled” hadn’t actually been terminated or were still active commitments, according to an NPR analysis of federal procurement data. When NPR tallied actual contract cancellations attributable to DOGE, the savings came out to around $2 billion total – with nearly half of that from just three targets: the Department of Education, the CFPB, and USAID. In other words, DOGE’s real fiscal impact was negligible in the context of a $7 trillion budget. One analysis noted that even if one optimistically assumed DOGE’s reported cuts were twice as accurate as earlier figures, the annual savings might be on the order of $15 billion – only about 0.2% of federal spending.
Crucially, DOGE has failed to tackle the largest sources of federal spending, which limits any meaningful budget reduction. Musk's team concentrated on relatively small discretionary programs (often tied to political hot buttons) while major drivers like Social Security and Medicare remain untouched. “The real test for Musk and Trump,” noted budget expert Bill Hoagland, “will be whether and when they tackle the huge drivers of government spending: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid” – programs that together are nearly half the federal budget. Yet Trump vowed on the campaign trail not to cut Social Security or Medicare, effectively leaving the $2 trillion savings goal far out of reach. By Musk's admission, as of May 2025, the $160 billion in claimed savings was “far less” than the original target, which Musk conceded was unlikely without touching popular entitlements. DOGE’s current savings claim is <10% of what Musk once promised to achieve annually, highlighting a significant shortfall in meeting its cost-reduction objectives.
Criticisms and Negative Impacts
One of the signs at the main entrance of USAID was taped over on February 7, 2025, as the agency's operations were curtailed under DOGE.
Beyond the questionable budgetary impact, DOGE’s approach has drawn sharp criticism for its negative effects on government function and public services. Watchdog groups and nonpartisan analysts argue that Musk and Trump have invoked “efficiency” as a pretext to target agencies for ideological reasons rather than actual waste. “Independent watchdogs and outside analysts say Trump and Musk are using overly broad claims of fraud to build political support for sweeping cuts to programs and offices,” reported The Washington Post. Notably, DOGE has loosely labeled programs as “fraudulent” or “wasteful” without evidence, especially those aligned with prior administration priorities (such as diversity initiatives or climate programs). This has provided political cover to eliminate programs per se rather than addressing true malfeasance. For example, DOGE's public data showed no actual instances of contract fraud uncovered; instead, it highlighted many projects that simply conflicted with the administration’s ideology (grants for climate research, educational equity, etc.).
The human and economic toll of DOGE’s cuts has been substantial. In the rush to “streamline,” DOGE pushed a massive deferred resignation buyout plan, inducing over 75,000 federal employees to resign in exchange for payouts while paradoxically allowing many to stay on full salary through September 2025. Thousands of other employees were summarily fired, only for 24,000 of them to be ordered rehired by courts due to unlawful termination. The immediate result was chaos in agency staffing, loss of experienced personnel, and hefty legal expenses – all of which taxpayers ultimately fund. Federal services suffered: agencies like the IRS and Social Security Administration found themselves understaffed, leading to backlogs and reduced customer service. Ironically, cost-cutting layoffs may end up costing more: the Partnership for Public Service estimated direct savings of only $38 billion over 10 years from layoffs, while just the loss of IRS enforcement could forfeit $323 billion in tax revenue over the next decade due to lower compliance and fewer audits. In other words, firing IRS agents to save money is a classic lose-lose, as it shrinks revenue far more than expenses.
DOGE’s reduction of program budgets has also undercut investments with high returns and public benefits. Cuts to scientific and medical research are a prime example. By slashing funds for the National Institutes of Health and other research programs, DOGE will save only trivial amounts in the near term (public health spending fell by about $1 billion per month after DOGE’s changes), but at a great cost: one analysis projects that reductions in health R&D could result in a $16 billion annual economic loss and 68,000 jobs lost due to stalled innovation. Likewise, the gutting of foreign aid programs under USAID – halting initiatives to combat HIV, malaria, and other global diseases – saves at most about $1 billion per month, yet threatens immense long-term harm to global stability and public health. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s dismantling means weakened protections for Americans against predatory lending and financial scams, potentially costing consumers far more than the few million dollars saved by cutting the bureau’s budget. Even the Department of Education, a frequent DOGE target, saw minimal immediate spending reductions aside from ending some post-pandemic programs that were scheduled to expire anyway – yet future costs may rise if educational outcomes suffer and student loan collections falter.
Furthermore, Musk’s involvement and DOGE’s opaque tactics raised ethical and legal concerns. DOGE members copied sensitive government data (from personnel records to contract databases), ostensibly to hunt for waste. This unprecedented access to information has prompted lawsuits and alarm from oversight bodies. Transparency advocates sued for DOGE to release its internal records; early court orders demanded disclosure, but enforcement has been tangled in appeals. Meanwhile, relations between Trump and Musk soured by mid-2025 amid these controversies – with Trump even threatening to cut federal contracts and subsidies benefiting Musk’s companies, calling DOGE’s shortfall a personal failure by Musk. Public opinion also turned largely negative: 57% of Americans disapproved of Musk’s handling of his government role, and a majority worried the administration was going "too far" in shrinking the government's role. By May 2025, Musk announced he would step back from day-to-day leadership of DOGE, citing the need to focus on his faltering businesses (Tesla’s stock and profits had plummeted, partly due to backlash against Musk’s political foray). He insisted he would still spend a day or two a week on DOGE to ensure “waste and fraud doesn’t come roaring back,” but many observers saw the move as Musk quietly distancing himself from an initiative mired in controversy.
Structural Challenges: Why Cuts Need Policy Changes
Many of DOGE’s struggles highlight a broader truth in public finance: cutting government spending rarely yields significant savings unless the underlying laws and obligations are changed. The federal budget is dominated by mandatory expenditures (like entitlement programs and debt interest) that cannot be reduced by executive streamlining alone. DOGE could trim discretionary line items and bureaucratic overhead, but these amount to drops in the bucket. As noted, even a drastic measure like laying off one-quarter of all federal civilian employees would only reduce spending by about 1%. DOGE's early buyouts of 75,000 employees are expected to save around $10 billion annually (roughly 0.1% of the budget) – and even that is likely an overestimate since agencies will need to hire contractors (often at higher cost) to continue essential work previously done by those workers. The really big dollars in the budget – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the debt – were outside DOGE’s reach and remained “untouched by DOGE’s focus on small but controversial targets”. Without reforming eligibility, benefits, or other policies set in law, no task force can substantially shrink these costs. Trump and Musk avoided these popular programs, meaning the math of serious deficit reduction was never on DOGE’s side.
Moreover, even in the discretionary realm, executive actions alone have limited staying power. The President can order agencies to cancel contracts or reorganize, but Congress controls the purse strings and the legal mandates for agencies. In DOGE’s case, Congress (even Republican lawmakers) showed little interest in passing legislation to ratify or make permanent the cuts and closures Musk’s team was pushing. This has two consequences: courts may overturn executive-branch cuts that lack statutory basis, and future budgets can simply refund programs that DOGE tried to kill. Indeed, many of DOGE’s moves are tied up in court battles, and upcoming appropriations bills – which require bipartisan support – are expected to continue funding the very departments (Education, USAID, public health, etc.) that DOGE targeted for elimination. In short, lasting savings require changing the law, not just slashing operations temporarily. Structural drivers of spending, like an aging population drawing entitlements or rising healthcare costs, cannot be altered by efficiency initiatives alone. And whenever federal spending is cut in one area without policy tweaks, costs often shift elsewhere: for instance, cutting federal health or education funds might just push costs onto state governments or individuals, rather than truly saving money overall. This is why analysts often say you “can’t balance the budget by cutting ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ alone” – much of what politicians label as "waste" is programs with constituencies and legal grounding. DOGE's experience underscores that reality: without Congressional buy-in to modify underlying programs, most attempted cuts are either paper illusions, politically unsustainable, or economically counterproductive.
Conclusion
DOGE was launched with great fanfare as an efficiency revolution led by Elon Musk – but in practice, it has fallen far short of its cost-saving hype, while causing significant disruption. The initiative’s goals of a leaner, fraud-free government have largely not materialized in measurable terms of budget relief. Instead, DOGE has eliminated or hobbled certain programs (often those at odds with the administration’s ideology) with only marginal fiscal benefit to show, according to numerous independent assessments. Analysts from across the spectrum – including veteran Republican budget officials – have criticized the effort as “more about political ideology than real cost savings”. While DOGE’s team touted a culture of efficiency, their methods (like error-riddled “savings” tallies and one-size-fits-all cuts) arguably revealed a lack of nuanced understanding of government operations. The failure to achieve meaningful savings is not just a story of implementation missteps; it reflects the fundamental challenge of trimming a federal budget where most spending is either mandatory or produces benefits that simply defer or diminish. Without addressing the underlying drivers of spending through legislation and policy reform, cuts tend to be short-lived or offset by unintended consequences.
Ultimately, DOGE’s legacy may be a cautionary tale. It illustrates the limits of an austerity crusade driven by executive fiat: you can fire staff, cancel contracts, and shutter offices, but you might end up paying more to clean up the fallout (from lost revenue to legal payouts) and angering the public in the process. Meaningful fiscal reform requires careful, structural changes and consensus – not just “slash-and-burn” tactics. As one observer quipped, if anyone thought DOGE was truly about saving money, “you were never in on the joke”. The Department of Government Efficiency set out to cut government fat, but so far it has mostly shown how difficult and costly blunt-force “efficiency” can be when deeper policy alignment isn’t achieved.
Notes: This is my own opinion and not the opinion of my employer, State Street, or any other organization. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell any stock. My team and I use a Large Language Model (LLM) aided workflow. This allows us to test 5-10 ideas and curate the best 2-4 a week for you to read. Rest easy that we fact check, edit, and reorganize the writing so that the output is more engaging, more reliable, and more informative than vanilla LLM output. We are always looking for feedback to improve this process.
Additionally, if you would like updates more frequently, follow us on x: https://x.com/cameronfen1. In addition, feel free to send me corrections, new ideas for articles, or anything else you think I would like: cameronfen at gmail dot com.