Musk said he was chainsawing government spending. It was more like a trim
By Brad Heath, Jason Lange, Andy Sullivan, Grant Smith
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Elon Musk once famously wielded a chainsaw on stage in a theatrical demonstration of his effort to drastically cut U.S. federal spending under President Donald Trump. As he leaves government, official data shows he achieved something closer to a trim with scissors.
In the four months since Musk's Department of Government Efficiency began slashing federal spending and staffing, a handful of the agencies he has targeted trimmed their combined spending by about $19 billion compared with the same period last year, according to U.S. Treasury Department summaries reviewed by Reuters.
That is far below Musk's initial goal of $2 trillion in savings and amounts to about a half of 1% of total spending by the federal government.
Musk said on Wednesday he is leaving the administration but that its cost-cutting work will "only strengthen over time." It remains to be seen, however, how enthusiastically Trump's cabinet secretaries will continue to downsize their departments.
DOGE says it pulled the plug on more than 26,000 federal grants and contracts that are worth about $73 billion, while more than 260,000 government workers have been bought out, taken early retirement or been fired.
But the DOGE tallies have been riddled with errors, according to reviews by numerous budget experts and media outlets, including Reuters. That has made them difficult to verify, and some of the announced cuts are not saving the government any money because judges have reversed or stalled them.
That leaves the Treasury Department's daily reports on how much the government is spending as the clearest window into the scope of the administration's cost-cutting.
The view they offer so far is modest: The government has spent about $250 billion more during the first months of Trump's administration than it did during the same period of time last year, a 10% increase. And even some parts of the government Trump has cut the most deeply are, for now at least, spending more money than they did last year.
One big factor driving costs is largely outside Trump's immediate control: interest payments on the United States' growing pile of debt, which amount to about $1 in every $7 the federal government spends. Debt interest payments are up about 22% from a year ago.
Spending on Social Security, the safety-net program for the elderly and disabled, totaled about $500 billion since Trump's inauguration, up 10% from a year earlier.
To be sure, the view offered by the Treasury Department's daily reports is incomplete.
Many of the cuts DOGE has made to the federal workforce, grants and contracting will reduce what the government will spend in the future but do not show up in its checkbook today.
For example, while thousands of workers have taken buyouts, the government will continue to pay their wages until October. So far, the Labor Department has estimated there were only about 26,000 fewer people on federal payrolls in April than were on the books in January, after adjusting the figures for typical seasonal swings.
Tallying savings from future cuts, however, is seldom straightforward.
'It could be that in the future we never replace these workers and we save billions of dollars, or it could be that they come back and it's even more expensive than before,' said Martha Gimbel, executive director of the Budget Lab at Yale, a nonpartisan budget analysis organization at Yale University.
The White House declined to offer an explanation for DOGE's figures. Spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement that 'DOGE is working at record speed to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, producing historic savings for the American people.'
Reuters estimated the administration's impact by tallying outlays at agencies that had been targeted for cuts and whose spending had dropped from the same time last year.
Among the agencies hardest hit are the Department of Education, State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other independent agencies.
Rachel Snyderman, an expert on fiscal policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the spending declines at agencies could be reversed if the Trump administration doesn't get congressional approval to cancel outlays from this year's federal budget, as required by law.
AN $11 BILLION EDUCATION CUT
The most obvious sign that the Trump administration is making a dent in federal spending is in the Education Department, which Trump has ordered shut down.
The administration cut the department's staff by about half in March. DOGE's website lists 311 Education Department grants and contracts it says it has eliminated for a savings of about $1.6 billion, though it is not clear how it arrived at those figures.
Some cuts have not stuck. A federal judge in March ordered the administration to restore some of the grants it had cut, and another judge this month ordered it to rehire 1,400 workers.
Still, the Education Department under Trump has spent close to $11 billion less than it did over the same period last year, the Treasury reports show, far more than what DOGE says it has cut.
One reason could be that layoffs have made it harder for the government to process payments for special education and low-income schools. School districts that have sued over the cuts alleged that states were already experiencing slowdowns in receiving money.
Another factor for the reduced outlays: The department has stopped handing out the $4.4 billion that remains to be distributed from the hundreds of billions of dollars approved in previous years to help schools weather the COVID-19 crisis.
The Education Department did not respond to a request for comment.
OTHER AREAS DOGE HAS CUT
Other agencies targeted in Trump's overhaul are also starting to show declines in their spending compared with the same time last year.
Spending is down about $350 million at the CDC and about $1 billion at the National Institutes of Health.
The Trump administration has moved to slash spending across those agencies, cancelling grants and ending leases for office space.
The Department of Health and Human Services has reported terminating close to 2,000 grants that planned to disperse more than $20 billion.
Many of the grants were to boost labs that fight new infectious diseases, or to fund state mental health programs. Some $14 billion of the grant money had already been spent prior to the termination, with roughly $7 billion effectively frozen, according to a Reuters analysis of the government's tallies.
The administration has effectively dismantled USAID, which handled most U.S. foreign assistance, firing nearly all of the agency's employees and cancelling most of its humanitarian aid and health programs, though federal courts have forced the government to continue making some payments.
USAID spending is down about 40%, to about $4.6 billion, from last year. Spending at the State Department – where DOGE says it has cut nearly $1 billion in grants and contracts – is also down about 20% from 2024.
WHY WE CAN'T KNOW MORE
Measuring the impact of the administration's actions is difficult because many cuts will not yield savings for months or years even as spending elsewhere increases. Spending on federal employee salaries, for example, is up by more than $3 billion under Trump.
Some of the grants and contracts DOGE cut were due to be paid out over several years, and many remain the subject of lawsuits that will determine whether they can be cut at all.
DOGE says it has saved taxpayers $175 billion, but the details it has posted on its website, where it gives the only public accounting of those changes, add up to less than half of that figure. It says the figure includes workforce cuts, interest savings and other measures it has not itemized.
It is also hard to know exactly how much the government would have spent if the administration had not started cutting.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Bill Maher Finds Common Ground With Donald Trump: 'Kernel of a Good Idea'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Comedian Bill Maher touted some common ground with President Donald Trump during his Friday evening TV show, saying the White House's targeting of Harvard University is a "kernel of a good idea." Maher described the elite Ivy League institution as an "a**hole factory," and said he'd long been critical of the university. Newsweek has reached out to Harvard and the White House via email for comment on Saturday morning. Why It Matters Maher has been a consistent Trump critic, routinely mocking the president for years on his HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher. At the same time, while the comedian continues to identify as a Democrat, he often criticizes the "woke" views of many in his political party. He also regularly invites Republicans on his show, and in late March had dinner with Trump at the White House. After the meeting, Maher spoke favorably of the president's personal interactions with him, sparking criticism from many liberal critics. Trump's recent actions against Harvard have drawn backlash from Democrats and other critics. However, Maher has suggested some agreement with the president on the issue. What to Know During his Friday evening show, Maher hosted CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat, on his panel. During the discussion, the comedian brought up the Trump administration's actions against Harvard. "The Harvard situation. Trump has declared full scale war on Harvard. And like so many things he does, there's a kernel of a good idea there. I mean, I've been s****ing on Harvard long before he was," Maher said. Tapper jumped in, quipping, "Well, you went to Cornell [University], so I mean...." "That's not why," Maher responded, with the exchange drawing laughter from the audience and the comedian. "No, it's because Harvard is an a**hole factory in a lot of ways, that produces smirking f*** faces." He then asked Moulton, "Are you from Harvard?" To which Tapper pointed out that the Democratic congressman has "three degrees from Harvard." "Present company accepted," Maher quickly added. Bill Maher attends the 2025 Vanity Fair Oscar Party at Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts on March 2 in Beverly Hills, California. Inset: President Donald Trump is seen at the Memorial Amphitheatre in... Bill Maher attends the 2025 Vanity Fair Oscar Party at Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts on March 2 in Beverly Hills, California. Inset: President Donald Trump is seen at the Memorial Amphitheatre in Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, on May 26. More Dia Dipasupil/FilmMagic/Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images How Trump Is Going After Harvard The dispute between Trump and Harvard University began earlier this year when his administration accused Harvard of failing to adequately address antisemitism on its campus, citing "pro-terrorist conduct" at protests. The administration responded by freezing more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard in April and has since attempted to terminate the university's ability to enroll international students through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The State Department is now also investigating the B-1 (business visas) and B-2 (tourist visas) associated with Harvard University, according to Fox News. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made moves to eliminate Harvard's student visa program, saying the university had refused to comply with a request to provide behavioral records of student visa holders. Trump, meanwhile, has demanded the names and countries of origin of all international students, saying that federal support entitled the government to such information. He wrote on Truth Social last Sunday: "We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard BILLIONS OF DOLLARS." Harvard insists it has complied with government requests, "despite the unprecedented nature and scope of the demand." On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs stepped in and issued a preliminary injunction, which stopped the Trump administration from revoking the school's SEVP certification without first following the legally mandated procedures. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump to reporters on Wednesday: "Harvard's got to behave themselves. Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect. And all they're doing is getting in deeper and deeper and got to behave themselves, you know. I'm for the for Harvard. I want Harvard to do well. I want Harvard to be great again, probably, because how could it be great? How could it great." Harvard President Alan M. Garber in a statement after a court win this week: "This is a critical step to protect the rights and opportunities of our international students and scholars, who are vital to the University's mission and community. Many among us are likely to have additional concerns and questions. Important updates and guidance will continue to be provided by the Harvard International Office as they become available." Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday: "Harvard's attitude is, 'We can do what we want, and we have a constitutional right to your money.' I think they're wrong, and I think they're going to find out how wrong they are." Fox News contributor Jessica Tarlov, a Democrat, wrote on X on Thursday in response to attacks on Harvard: "When you deport young people and cancel the visas of their friends, you become public enemy number one very quickly." Representative Seth Moulton wrote on X on Wednesday: "Trump's sad obsession with schools he doesn't like continues. These policies will mean that we are less competitive, less credible, and less innovative in the future. Nobody wins." What Happens Next? The Trump administration's actions targeting Harvard continue to be litigated in the courts.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pardoning celebs like NBA YoungBoy doesn't mean Trump is after the Black vote
I like the rapper YoungBoy Never Broke Again, also known as NBA YoungBoy. Not in a recite-his-lyrics sense, but if I hear him at LA Fitness, his melodic delivery can carry me through a tough bench press. And frankly, if you like rap music, he's impossible to avoid. He's a chart-topping platinum-selling — well, what are 'platinum sales' in an era where everyone streams (read: rents) music? — artist, and he's got a 28-city tour planned. So, the success and popularity is real. When Donald Trump pardoned NBA YoungBoy, whose real name is Kentrell Gaulden, from his gun-related charges, some might imagine the president was trying to reach me. Trump's clemency also included commuting the federal sentence of Larry Hoover, an aging Chicago gangster whom rappers like Drake, Chance the Rapper and Kanye West have long advocated for, further advancing the idea that he's making for my demo. After all, I'm Black. I only yawned, like, four times at my last rap concert, which means I can still claim youth-adjacency until the grays take over. I'd rather our country's criminal legal system pursue alternative means of holding people accountable for serious misconduct than stuffing them in a prison cell. I'm glad YoungBoy is home. Rolling Stone's Andre Gee, the strongest modern chronicler of the intersection of hip hop, politics and the potential for a rightward shift, described it as a 'cheap appeal to Black voters.' If Gee is right, this move was particularly destitute. For starters: Hoover still has to serve his state-level multiple life sentences. Though just a few months into his second term, Trump has sought to censor the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture's frank chronicling of racial history and promised to 'Strengthen and Unleash America's Law Enforcement' by reducing measures for police accountability. (What was that NWA song? 'Hug Tha Police'? Forgive me, I only heard the Kids Bop version.) Who really wants a president who pardons the occasional Black celebrity but bans your ability to explain how they ended up behind bars and why you want them freed? This administration doesn't merely demand cognitive dissonance; its contradictions are enshrined in law. The Trump regime has attacked diversity initiatives at every chance, smearing efforts intended to increase Black (among other underrepresented groups) opportunity in business and education and defunding scientific inquiry intended to benefit Black people. Which is why I'm unsure that I am in Trump's target audience. I don't believe he's after my demographic of young, Black male rap fans eligible to vote, either. But, if you're reading this and you don't identify as a young minority, I think he's going after you. In February, I watched a right-wing PAC-sponsored Black History Month teaching event and left with a different education than they intended. Rather than hearing thoughtful analysis of Martin and Malcolm, Rosa and Fannie, Sojourner, Harriet and the intertwined legacies of Black scholars, politicians, activists, and entertainers of the past, I witnessed a Black man teach his mostly white audience how to persuade Black people to vote for Republicans. I wrote at the time that persuading Black people to adopt racially conservative politics was an 'uphill battle.' A few months passed, and I no longer believe that was the primary concern, the more important goal was validating and reinforcing the worldview of people who were already racial conservatives. Trump's onslaught of plainly discriminatory, violent policies might be the greatest threat to racial conservatism. Many of Trump's anti-DEI pushes have loudly backfired — the administration was more or less shamed out of stripping Jackie Robinson's military history from the Department of Defense. Retail giant Target's compliance with the Trump administration provoked significant boycotts with plummeting earnings. The ugly, often illegal and frequently terrifying disappearances, including graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, Real Madrid superfan Jerce Reyes, and makeup artist Andry Hernandez Romero, is hardly winning friends to the movement. Some Trump voters won't care. As Tarrant County Republican chair Bo French loves to remind his X (formerly Twitter) followers, he voted for this! You might enjoy, for example, that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the father of three who was mistakenly deported still remains in a Salvadorian cell, despite the pleas of his wife and community. But maintaining such a stance probably puts you in the minority: a recent NYT/Sienna poll found that just 31% of Americans approve of how Trump handled Abrego's case, and 51% overall disapprove of his approach to immigration, an issue that was once a winning part of the Trump campaign's appeal to voters. Which brings me back to understanding the political utility of pardoning YoungBoy or Hoover. (Or, from Trump's first term, Lil Wayne and Kodak Black.) Positive press and a photo op around a Black celebrity isn't recruitment so much as it rallies the troops, allowing those who desire a chance to rationalize what they've done. Such stunts may pick up a few Black supporters. Not that many, but some. But whatever gains Trump may make with Black Americans pale in comparison to what it means symbolically for his base. Establishing his soft spot for the occasional Black celebrity indicates that maybe he's not so bad. And if he's an all-right guy, well, so are his voters. We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section. • Letters should be no more than 150 words. • Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days. • Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions. You can submit a letter to the editor two ways: • Email letters@ (preferred). • Fill out this online form. Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. just radically changed its COVID vaccine recommendations: How will it affect you?
As promised, federal health officials have dropped longstanding recommendations that healthy children and healthy pregnant women should get the COVID-19 vaccines. "The COVID-19 vaccine schedule is very clear. The vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women. The vaccine is not recommended for healthy children," the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a post on X on Friday. In formal documents, health officials offer "no guidance" on whether pregnant women should get the vaccine, and ask that parents talk with a healthcare provider before getting the vaccine for their children. The decision was done in a way that is still expected to require insurers to pay for COVID-19 vaccines for children should their parents still want the shots for them. The new vaccine guidelines were posted to the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday. It wasn't immediately clear whether insurers will still be required under federal law to pay for vaccinations for pregnant women. The Trump administration's decision came amid criticism from officials at the nation's leading organizations for pediatricians and obstetricians. Some doctors said there is no new evidence to support removing the recommendation that healthy pregnant women and healthy children should get the COVID vaccine. "This situation continues to make things unclear and creates confusion for patients, providers and payers," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement Friday. Earlier in the week, the group's president, Dr. Steven Fleischman, said the science hasn't changed, and that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and protects both the mom-to-be and their infants after birth. "It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic," Fleischman said in a statement. Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, criticized the recommendation change as being rolled out in a "conflicting, confusing" manner, with "no explanation of the evidence used to reach their conclusions." "For many families, the COVID vaccine will remain an important way they protect their child and family from this disease and its complications, including long COVID," Kressly said in a statement. Some experts said the Trump administration should have waited to hear recommendations from a committee of doctors and scientists that typically advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on immunization recommendations, which is set to meet in late June. The California Department of Public Health on Thursday said it supported the longstanding recommendation that "COVID-19 vaccines be available for all persons aged 6 months and older who wish to be vaccinated." The changes come as the CDC has faced an exodus of senior leaders and has lacked an acting director. Typically, as was the case during the first Trump administration and in the Biden administration, it is the CDC director who makes final decisions on vaccine recommendations. The CDC director has traditionally accepted the consensus viewpoint of the CDC's panel of doctors and scientists serving on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Even with the longstanding recommendations, vaccination rates were relatively low for children and pregnant women. As of late April, 13% of children, and 14.4% of pregnant women, had received the latest updated COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC. About 23% of adults overall received the updated vaccine, as did 27.8% of seniors age 65 and over. The CDC estimates that since October, there have been 31,000 to 50,000 COVID deaths and between 270,000 and 430,000 COVID hospitalizations. Here are some key points about the CDC's decision: Previously, the CDC's guidance was simple: everyone ages 6 months and up should get an updated COVID vaccination. The most recent version was unveiled in September, and is officially known as the 2024-25 COVID-19 vaccine. As of Thursday, the CDC, on its pediatric immunization schedule page, says that for healthy children — those age 6 months to 17 years — decisions about COVID vaccination should come from "shared clinical decision-making," which is "informed by a decision process between the healthcare provider and the patient or parent/guardian." "Where the parent presents with a desire for their child to be vaccinated, children 6 months and older may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances," the CDC says. The vaccine-skeptic secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., contended in a video posted on Tuesday there was a "lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children." However, an earlier presentation by CDC staff said that, in general, getting an updated vaccine provides both children and adults additional protection from COVID-related emergency room and urgent care visits. Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a UC San Francisco infectious diseases expert, said he would have preferred the CDC retain its broader recommendation that everyone age 6 months and up get the updated vaccine. "It's simpler," Chin-Hong said. He added there's no new data out there that to him suggests children shouldn't be getting the updated COVID vaccine. A guideline that involves "shared decision-making," Chin-Hong said, "is a very nebulous recommendation, and it doesn't result in a lot of people getting vaccines." Kressly, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the shared clinical decision-making model is challenging to implement "because it lacks clear guidance for the conversations between a doctor and a family. Doctors and families need straightforward, evidence-based guidance, not vague, impractical frameworks." Some experts had been worried that the CDC would make a decision that would've ended the federal requirement that insurers cover the cost of COVID-19 vaccines for children. The out-of-pocket cost for a COVID-19 vaccine can reach around $200. In its adult immunization schedule for people who have medical conditions, the CDC now says it has "no guidance" on whether pregnant women should get the COVID-19 vaccine. In his 58-second video on Tuesday, Kennedy did not explain why he thought pregnant women should not be recommended to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Chin-Hong, of UCSF, called the decision to drop the vaccination recommendation for pregnant women "100%" wrong. Pregnancy brings with it a relatively compromised immune system. Pregnant women have "a high chance of getting infections, and they get more serious disease — including COVID," Chin-Hong said. A pregnant woman getting vaccinated also protects the newborn. "You really need the antibodies in the pregnant person to go across the placenta to protect the newborn," Chin-Hong said. It's especially important, Chin-Hong and others say, because infants under 6 months of age can't be vaccinated against COVID-19, and they have as high a risk of severe complications as do seniors age 65 and over. There are some questions that don't have immediate answers. Will some vaccine providers start requiring doctor's notes in order for healthy children and healthy pregnant women to get vaccinated? Will it be harder for children and pregnant women to get vaccinated at a pharmacy? In a statement, CVS Pharmacy said it "follows federal guidance and state law regarding vaccine administration and are monitoring any changes that the government may make regarding vaccine eligibility." The insurer Aetna, which is owned by CVS, is also monitoring any changes federal officials make to COVID-19 vaccine eligibility "and will evaluate whether coverage adjustments are needed." Blue Shield of California said it will not change its practices on covering COVID-19 vaccines. "Despite the recent federal policy change on COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy children and pregnant women, Blue Shield of California will continue to cover COVID-19 vaccines for all eligible members," the insurer said in a statement. "The decision on whether to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is between our member and their provider. Blue Shield does not require prior authorization for COVID-19 vaccines." Under California law, health plans regulated by the state Department of Managed Health Care must cover COVID-19 vaccines without requiring prior authorization, the agency said Friday. "If consumers access these services from a provider in their health plan's network, they will not need to pay anything for these services," the statement said. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.