Discrepancies in DOGE’s Cost-Cutting Claims: A Closer Look
Introduction to DOGE’s "Receipts" and Their Claims
For the second time in as many weeks, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has released a list of "receipts," or canceled contracts, aimed at demonstrating its efforts to cut costs. These receipts are posted on DOGE’s "wall of receipts," a platform intended to showcase savings from contract terminations, renegotiations, and other reductions. However, like the first round of receipts, this latest release contains significant inaccuracies and raises serious questions about the credibility of DOGE’s claims. While the agency initially claimed $16.6 billion in savings, the updated itemized total now stands at $9.6 billion—a sharp reduction. Despite this, DOGE is now asserting total savings of $65 billion, a figure far higher than the itemized amount and a significant increase from its earlier claim of $55 billion. This discrepancy has drawn criticism, particularly since much of the $65 billion figure lacks supporting documentation.
Errors and Inconsistencies in DOGE’s Reporting
The problems with DOGE’s receipts extend beyond the reduced itemized total. Many of the contracts listed are unlikely to result in the savings claimed by the agency. For instance, Michael LeJeune, a private consultant with expertise in government contracts, highlights that many of these contracts are unfunded or partly funded agreements that rarely reach their full potential. DOGE has also been accused of double, triple, and even quadruple counting certain contracts, inflating the perceived savings. For example, a contract for DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) training and assessment services for the Department of Agriculture was listed four times, with each listing attributing $25 million in savings, even though the contract itself was only $25 million. This quadruple counting erroneously claims $100 million in savings instead of the actual $25 million.
Lack of Transparency and Documentation
A major issue with DOGE’s claims is the lack of transparency and supporting documentation. While the agency attributes $144.6 million in savings to real estate actions, it has provided little to no details beyond the dollar figures, agency names, and cities. This makes independent verification of these savings nearly impossible. For example, DOGE has taken credit for the sale of a building in Washington, D.C., but CBS News discovered that the building was actually auctioned off during the Biden administration for approximately $4 million. Similarly, DOGE continues to claim $8 million in savings from a canceled contract, despite evidence that the actual savings are only $4.2 million due to an accounting error.
Specific Examples of Overstated Savings
Several specific examples highlight the overstatement of savings in DOGE’s receipts. One notable case involves a contract for IT work valued at $1.9 billion, but it remains unclear whether the cancellation applies to the entire project or just a portion of the contract. In another instance, three separate items list $15 million each in savings, all referencing the same contract under different contractors. This blanket purchase agreement for "human resources consulting services" was terminated by the Trump administration, but the extent of the funding spent remains unclear. Additionally, a contract initially listed three times with total savings of $1.965 billion was later revised to show vastly different figures, ranging from $0.35 to $18,171,886, further casting doubt on DOGE’s claims.
Implications for Government Workers and Contractors
The cost-cutting measures implemented by DOGE have significant implications for government workers and contractors. Tens of thousands of jobs have likely been lost as a result of these contract terminations. This trend is particularly concerning in light of a 2020 Brookings Institution study, which found that contractors outnumber federal staff, with about 2.2 federal workers for every 5 contractors. The study also noted that President Trump added approximately 2 million jobs to the contractor workforce during his first term. As DOGE zeroes out these contracts, the impact on employment could be substantial, raising questions about the broader economic effects of these cuts.
Conclusion: The Need for Accuracy and Accountability
The discrepancies in DOGE’s receipts underscore the need for greater accountability and transparency in government spending and cost-cutting efforts. While the goal of reducing waste and inefficiency is commendable, the lack of accurate documentation and the overstatement of savings undermine the credibility of these efforts. To restore public trust, DOGE must provide clearer, more detailed information about its savings claims and ensure that its "wall of receipts" is free from errors and double counting. Additionally, the agency should carefully consider the human impact of its actions, particularly as they affect government workers and contractors who are essential to the functioning of federal programs.
