Summary: A New York Times review found that many of the Department of Government Efficiency's biggest claims about cutting government spending were misleading or false. DOGE's 13 largest reductions were incorrect, including two Defense contracts falsely labeled as terminated and said to save $7.9 billion. The office never approached its $2 trillion target and generated new costs such as lawsuits, lost productivity, rehirings, and paid leave. Critics say the drive also politicized the civil service and weakened vital services, with reported global impacts tied to USAID disruptions.
DOGE Was a Sham — How an 'Efficiency' Drive Misled the Public and Harmed Services
DOGE was a dishonest sham — that still hurt our country
DOGE, the short-lived Department of Government Efficiency created during the Trump administration and publicly associated with Elon Musk, collapsed in November amid allegations that many of its headline claims were misleading or false. A detailed examination by The New York Times found that the office’s most prominent savings claims did not hold up to scrutiny.
Key Findings
Major claims were inaccurate. The Times determined that DOGE’s 13 largest claims about spending reductions were wrong or misleading. At the top of the list were two Defense Department contracts — one for information technology and one for aircraft maintenance — which DOGE labeled as "terminations" and said had saved taxpayers $7.9 billion. In reality, those contracts remained active, and the claimed savings were an accounting illusion.
Two entries dwarfed thousands of others. Those two erroneous entries accounted for more reported savings than roughly 25,000 of DOGE’s other claims combined. Of the 40 largest items on DOGE’s list, the Times found only 12 that appeared to reflect genuine reductions in government spending commitments.
Savings goals were never realistic. DOGE never came close to its headline goal of $2 trillion in savings. Within months the office exhibited its own inefficiencies: lawsuits over dismissals, lost productivity, costly rehirings, and large amounts of paid leave undercut any potential gains and in some cases increased net costs.
Efficiency as a pretext for politicization. Critics argue that rhetoric about efficiency masked a political project to pare and politicize the federal civil service — replacing career officials with loyalists and intimidating workers. That upheaval degraded government capacity and weakened social services.
'DOGE’s legacy is both very stupid and very sad,' The New Republic wrote, citing cuts to Social Security staffing, increased cybersecurity risks, and damage to USAID that critics link to severe global consequences.
Why This Matters
Beyond numbers, the DOGE episode illustrates how poorly executed reforms can do harm: misleading public accounts undermine trust, poorly planned personnel changes degrade service delivery, and shortcuts in oversight can increase vulnerability to security and humanitarian failures. Even when some initiatives are stalled by legal or bureaucratic obstacles, the disruption to government services can be lasting.
Moving forward, independent verification, transparent accounting, and protections for career civil servants are essential to any genuine push for greater efficiency in government. Without those safeguards, 'efficiency' risks becoming a cover for shortcuts that leave the public worse off.
