
Has DOGE really saved the US government $180bn?
President Donald Trump and adviser Elon Musk celebrated their efforts to slash federal spending before Musk stepped away from his White House work. Musk wore a black DOGE hat over a bruised right eye that he blamed on his young son's punch. That was May 30 in the Oval Office. Days later, the two billionaires were punching at each other on the social media platforms they own.
Their fight began over federal tax and spending legislation, with Musk calling a Trump-backed bill 'a disgusting abomination' and Trump saying he was 'very disappointed' with Musk. Soon, Musk claimed credit for Trump and Republicans winning in 2024, and Trump threatened to cut off Musk's companies' federal contracts.
I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore.
This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.
Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 3, 2025The public display of animosity called into question the fate of months of Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) work.
Under Musk's oversight and with Trump's approval, DOGE axed billions of dollars in grants for state health departments and scientific research. It gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers. It all but shuttered the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the decades-old department that provides food and healthcare to people in other countries.
Still, as Musk ended his work with DOGE, it was clear that the group's cost-cutting achievements fell short of Musk's goals. A week before Trump won his second term, Musk said he expected to cut 'at least $2 trillion', without identifying a timeframe for doing it. He later lowered that to $1 trillion.
But both figures were wildly unrealistic. Even if Musk could have eliminated every dollar of non-defence discretionary spending – everything from air traffic control, medical research, federal prosecutors and prisons to border control, US embassies and national parks – he wouldn't have reached his $1 trillion goal.
As of early June, DOGE's online 'wall of receipts' accounting of federal dollars cut said that the government had cut $180 billion. But analyses by PolitiFact, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and the conservative American Enterprise Institute showed that the tallies Musk provided were flawed. And total 2025 federal spending under Trump has continued to grow.
Nat Malkus, an education policy specialist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said DOGE's cuts showed an 'appetite for recklessness', and its error and exaggeration-filled wall of receipts provided 'ample grounds for scepticism' about its accuracy. 'Beyond that, the receipts only cover a fraction of their actions, making their accomplishments and savings impossible to verify,' Malkus said.
DOGE's 'wall of receipts' reported that the $180bn savings represented a combination of actions, including lease and grant cancellations, 'fraud and improper payment deletion' and eliminating employees.
During their May 30 news conference, Musk predicted savings would rise to $1 trillion, but their public dispute made DOGE's future more uncertain. A few top lieutenants had already departed; dozens of DOGE employees remained.
DOGE says its wall of receipts is incomplete: 'We are working to upload all of our receipts in a digestible and transparent manner consistent with applicable rules and regulations,' the website says, calling its list 'a subset of contract, grant, and lease cancellations, representing ~30 percent of total savings.'
And it has errors. For example, DOGE said it would save $740,457 by ending a lease that housed records for the Barack Obama Presidential Library. But the federal government had already planned to end that lease in 2025. The property's leasing company told PolitiFact on May 30 that the government is still using the property and paying rent. If the government leaves before September, it will have to continue paying under the lease's terms, unless another tenant is secured.
Some of DOGE's contract and grant cancellations are being litigated, and the government may ultimately be required to fulfil them.
'Even for grants and contracts that DOGE cut, the claimed savings may never be realised,' Joshua Sewell, a federal budget expert at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said.
The $180bn figure was aspirational and projected, PolitiFact found.
'Itemised, verifiable cuts – those with receipts – are roughly half that amount,' said Dominik Lett, a budget policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. 'Of those itemised cuts, there are numerous clerical errors and inflated savings values.'
Government officials did not respond to our questions about how many federal employees were cut. The New York Times reported that as of May 12, the government reduced its workforce by roughly 135,000, including cuts and buyouts. That amounts to a tiny portion of the 2.4 million federal workforce, with similarly modest savings in salaries. The Reuters news agency, counting early retirements in addition to buyouts and firings, said the tally was 260,000.
When 75,000 employees who took buyouts come off the books in October, that will save about $10bn a year, or 0.1 percent of federal spending, Jessica Riedl, an expert on the federal budget at the conservative Manhattan Institute, wrote in an essay for The Atlantic. (Trump quoted the 75,000 figure during his May 30 news conference.) But the government could end up hiring contractors to perform some of that work, further shrinking those savings.
Not every agency or department faced widespread cuts. The Justice Department's staffing was reduced by about 1 percent, The New York Times found. But nearly all employees were cut at USAID and AmeriCorps. Nearly half of the Education Department's staff were cut.
Federal government spending continues to rise. In April 2025, total spending was $594bn, $27bn more than in April 2024, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's a 5 percent increase. The largest spending decrease – $17bn – came in the Department of Education, which Trump promised to eliminate. But Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid outlays rose, as did some department spending, including in agriculture and defence.
Some of DOGE's line items show savings of zero dollars, which a White House spokesperson said means that the money has been spent but won't be renewed, such as for news subscriptions or training. It also showed some negative values for grants; a State Department spokesperson said they were caused by an input error that had since been corrected, although it was still on the site as of about noon ET (16:00 GMT) on June 5.
It's unclear whether DOGE's spending cuts will be permanent because federal law requires the executive branch to send proposed cuts, known as 'rescissions', to Congress for approval. The White House on June 3 sent a $9.4bn package of rescission cuts to Congress that includes cutting foreign aid.
'DOGE can kill projects, but the spending doesn't become savings until Congress votes to 'unspend' the money,' Malkus said.
DOGE also increased some government costs, such as those incurred when defending against lawsuits.
DOGE left no state untouched, according to an analysis by the liberal Center for American Progress. It terminated leases and grants to health departments, universities and volunteer programmes across the country.
DOGE listed terminations of hundreds of millions of dollars in state health department grants, which represented some of the group's biggest 'savings'. These cuts targeted health departments in states including Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.
The administration said the cuts mostly affected money used for the COVID-19 pandemic response.
Twenty-three states challenged the cuts in a lawsuit that argued the move caused states 'tremendous chaos' including 'immediate harm to public health initiatives and the termination of large numbers of state and local public health employees and contractors'. In mid-May, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring the federal government to release the frozen funding.
'These funds support state and local health departments in combatting infectious diseases, as well as offering mental health services and funding addiction treatment programmes,' said Lynn Sutfin, a state Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson in Michigan, one of the state plaintiffs.
Other cuts included nearly $400m in AmeriCorps grants, resulting in the terminations of more than 32,000 AmeriCorps members and volunteers, and the historic gutting of USAID, the nation's federal international humanitarian and development arm.
One local AmeriCorps programme, Serve Louisiana, filed a lawsuit to stop cuts to its $700,000 grant that aimed to place 37 workers with Louisiana nonprofits, including a food bank, a library and Boys and Girls Clubs, through August. As of June 2, the lawsuit was ongoing.
'Our nonprofit partners are now scrambling to adapt without the help they counted on,' Serve Louisiana Executive Director Lisa Moore said.
USAID programmes aimed to reduce hunger and disease and promote democracy globally. In fiscal year 2024, USAID made up 0.3 percent of the federal budget. Weeks after Trump's inauguration, DOGE froze nearly all of USAID's spending and terminated nearly all employees.
Musk boasted on February 3 that DOGE had fed 'USAID into the wood chipper', and two weeks later he wielded a chainsaw at a conservative political event to symbolise what he said was his attack on federal bureaucracy.
USAID's dismantling had sprawling global effects.
In Ukraine – the largest recipient of USAID funds since Russia's 2022 invasion – regional media outlets lost funding and medical charities shuttered programmes that screened for and treated tuberculosis and HIV, NPR reported.
US diplomats in Malawi said US funding cuts to the United Nations World Food Programme increased criminal activity, sexual violence and human trafficking in a large refugee camp, ProPublica reported. American embassy officials in Kenya said funding cuts to refugee camp food programmes led to violent demonstrations, ProPublica said.
People also died because of the chaotic aid disruptions, according to Al Jazeera, NPR, The Associated Press, and other news organisations.
The consequences are still unspooling.
The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that up to four million people in Africa might die from treatable diseases without USAID funding. Former USAID officials told Reuters that, because of the cuts, food rations worth $98m that could supply 3.5 million people for a month are decaying in warehouses and some are likely to be destroyed. The World Health Organization cautioned in March that USAID cuts could trigger a global increase in tuberculosis cases and deaths.
Musk and Trump said that DOGE would ferret out fraud, too. Government reports predating Trump's current term show fraud is a real problem, but so far DOGE has not proven that it has recently uncovered mass fraud.
A White House spokesperson said there had been 50 criminal referrals stemming from DOGE's work and pointed to three individuals charged for voting as a noncitizen in New York or Florida. Statements by federal prosecutors said that DOGE assisted with the cases. Such cases had been prosecuted before DOGE's creation.
Hashtags

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


Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data
The United States Supreme Court has sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in two cases about government records — and who should have access to them. On Friday, the six-member conservative majority overturned a lower court's ruling that limited the kinds of data that Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could access through the Social Security Administration (SSA). In a separate case, the majority also decided that DOGE was not required to turn over records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a government transparency law. In both cases, the Supreme Court's three left-leaning justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan — opposed the majority's decision. DOGE has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign to reimagine the federal government and cut down on bureaucratic 'bloat'. Unveiled on November 13, just eight days after Trump's re-election, DOGE was designed to 'dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies'. At first, it was unclear how DOGE would interact with the executive branch: whether it would be an advisory panel, a new department or a nongovernmental entity. But on January 20, when Trump was sworn in for his second term, he announced that the existing US Digital Service — a technology initiative founded by former President Barack Obama — would be reorganised to create DOGE. The government efficiency panel has since led a wide-scale overhaul of the federal government, implementing mass layoffs and seeking to shutter entities like the US Agency for International Development (USAID). It also advertised cost-savings it had achieved or alleged fraud it had uncovered, though many of those claims have been contradicted or questioned by journalists and experts. In addition, DOGE's sweeping changes to the federal government made it the subject of criticism and concern, particularly as it sought greater access to sensitive data and systems. Up until last week, DOGE was led by Elon Musk, a billionaire and tech entrepreneur who had been a prominent backer of Trump's re-election bid. Musk and Trump, however, have had a public rupture following the end of the billionaire's tenure as a 'special government employee' in the White House. That falling-out has left DOGE's future uncertain. One of DOGE's controversial initiatives has been its push to access Social Security data, in the name of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Early in Trump's second term, both the president and Musk repeated misleading claims that Social Security payments were being made to millions of people listed as 150 years old or older. But fact-checkers quickly refuted that allegation. Instead, they pointed out that the Social Security Administration has implemented a code to automatically stop payments to anyone listed as alive and more than 115 years old. They also pointed out that the COBOL programming language flags incomplete entries in the Social Security system with birthdates set back 150 years, possibly prompting the Trump administration's confusion. Less than 1 percent of Social Security payments are made erroneously, according to a 2024 inspector general report. Still, Trump officials criticised the Social Security Administration, with Musk dubbing it 'the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time' and calling for its elimination. In March, US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked DOGE from having unfettered access to Social Security data, citing the sensitive nature of such information. Social Security numbers, for instance, are key to verifying a person's identity in the US, and the release of such numbers could endanger individual privacy. Lipton Hollander ruled that DOGE had 'never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA's entire record systems'. She questioned why DOGE had not sought a 'more tailored' approach. 'Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud,' she wrote in her ruling. 'Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.' The judge's ruling, however, did allow DOGE to view anonymised data, without personally identifying information. The Trump administration, nevertheless, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that Judge Lipton Hollander had exceeded her authority in blocking DOGE's access. The Supreme Court granted its emergency petition on Friday, lifting Lipton Hollander's temporary restrictions on the data in an unsigned decision. But Justice Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent (PDF), suggesting that the Supreme Court was willing to break norms to assist a presidency that was unwilling to let legal challenges play out in lower courts. 'Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them,' Brown Jackson wrote. She argued that the Trump administration had not established that any 'irreparable harm' would occur if DOGE were temporarily blocked from accessing Social Security data. But by granting the Trump administration's emergency petition, she said the court was 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process'. The second Supreme Court decision on Friday concerned whether DOGE itself had to surrender documents under federal transparency laws. The question was raised as part of a lawsuit brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group. It argued that DOGE's sweeping powers suggested it should be subject to laws like FOIA, just like any other executive agency. But CREW also alleged that the ambiguity surrounding DOGE's structures had kept it insulated from outside probes. 'While publicly available information indicates that DOGE is subject to FOIA, the lack of clarity on DOGE's authority leaves that an open question,' CREW said in a statement. The watchdog group sought to compel DOGE to provide information about its inner workings. While a US district judge had sided with CREW's request for records in April, the Supreme Court on Friday paused that lower court's decision (PDF). It sent the case back to a court of appeals for further consideration, with instructions that the April order be narrowed. 'Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade,' the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled. It also said that the courts needed to exercise 'deference and restraint' regarding 'internal' executive communications.


Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to US to face charges
A man the Donald Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador has been brought back to the United States, where authorities say he will face criminal charges. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, a Salvadoran immigrant who had lived nearly half his life in Maryland before he was deported in March, faces charges of transporting undocumented migrants inside the US, according to recently unsealed court records. US Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday that Abrego Garcia was returned to the US to 'face justice'. The indictment against him was filed on May 21, more than two months after he was deported in spite of a court order barring his removal. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, which suspected Abrego Garcia of human trafficking but ultimately issued only a warning for an expired driver's license, according to a Department of Homeland Security report. Bondi, speaking at a news conference, said a grand jury had 'found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring'. She said Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele agreed to return Abrego Garcia to the US after American officials presented his government with an arrest warrant. Abrego Garcia had been sent to El Salvador as part of a Trump scheme to move undocumented migrants it accuses of being gang members, to prison in the Central American country without due process. Bukele said in a social media post that his government works with the Trump administration and 'of course' would not refuse a request to return 'a gang member' to the US. Al Jazeera's Rosiland Jordan, reporting from Washington, DC, said Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted. But 'that does not deal with the ongoing matter of whether or not he should be deported', she added. 'That's a separate legal matter.' Abrego Garcia will have the chance to enter a plea in court and contest the charges at trial. If he is convicted, he would be deported to El Salvador after serving his sentence, Bondi said. In a statement, Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Andrew Rossman, said it would now be up to the US judicial system to ensure he received due process. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along – that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' said Rossman, a partner at law firm Quinn Emanuel. Abrego Garcia's deportation defied an immigration judge's 2019 order granting him protection from being sent back to El Salvador, where it found he was likely to be persecuted by gangs if returned, court records show. Trump critics pointed to the erroneous deportation as an example of the excesses of the Republican president's aggressive approach to stepping up deportations. Officials countered by alleging that Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. His lawyers have denied that he was a gang member and said he had not been convicted of any crime. Abrego Garcia's case has become a flash point for escalating tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, which has ruled against a number of Trump's policies. The US Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the government had cited no basis for what she called his 'warrantless arrest'. US District Judge Paula Xinis also opened a probe into what, if anything, the Trump administration did to secure his return, after his lawyers accused officials of stonewalling their requests for information.


Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump announces second round of US trade talks with China next week
United States President Donald Trump has announced a new round of trade talks with China in an apparent bid to dial down a bitter battle over tariffs between the world's two biggest economies. The president said on social media that the meeting would take place in London on Monday, his announcement coming one day after a rare leader-to-leader phone call with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping appeared to calm rising tensions. 'The meeting should go very well,' said Trump in a post on his Truth Social platform, adding that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would meet the Chinese team. The talks will mark the second round of negotiations between the two countries since Trump launched his trade war this year, targeting China with levies of up to 145 percent. Beijing struck back with countermeasures of 125 percent. Following talks in Geneva last month, both sides agreed to temporarily bring down the triple-digit tariffs, with US tariffs cooling to 30 percent and China's to 10 percent. But the temporary halt is expected to expire in early August and Trump last week accused China of violating the pact, underscoring deeper differences on both sides. US officials have accused China of slow-walking export approvals of rare earth minerals, which the country had limited after the tariff war broke out, triggering alarm among US companies. Other US concerns include alleged fentanyl trafficking, the status of democratically governed Taiwan, and China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model. On Wednesday, Trump said on Truth Social that Xi was 'VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH'. However, he reported a 'positive conclusion', following his long-awaited phone call with Xi on Thursday, which likely paved the way for further high-level trade talks – though a swift resolution to the tariffs impasse remains uncertain. The Chinese foreign ministry said Xi asked Trump to 'remove the negative measures' that the US has taken against China, alluding to his administration's decision to revoke the visas of Chinese students studying in the US.