OpenFeds Analysis
The $110 Billion Myth: What DOGE Actually Saved
DOGE claims $110.3 billion in savings. Independent analysis suggests the real number is closer to $5.5 billion. Here's how we get from claimed to actual.
📈The Headline Numbers
DOGE's headline number is impressive: $110.3 billion in savings across 29.6K terminated contracts, grants, and leases. But headline numbers in government are always more complicated than they appear.
The $110 billion figure represents the ceiling value of terminated agreements — not money that was actually being spent, and certainly not money saved.
This distinction is crucial. When DOGE claims $110 billion in "savings," they're adding up the maximum potential value of every contract and grant they terminated. But most of these agreements weren't fully spent, some were already completed, and many will be replaced with new contracts at similar or higher cost.
🔍Breaking Down the $110 Billion
Let's examine each category of DOGE's claimed savings to understand what's real and what's accounting.
DOGE's Claimed Savings Breakdown
Claims vs Reality ($ Billions)
💼 Contracts: $61.0 Billion
The largest category, but also the most misleading. Many terminated contracts were already completed or had minimal remaining value. POLITICO's investigation found actual contract savings were less than 5% of claimed.
🎓 Grants: $49.2 Billion
Grant terminations are more likely to represent real savings, as they typically stop future payments. However, many terminated grants have been replaced by state funding or new federal programs, reducing net savings.
🏢 Leases: $53.5 Million
The smallest category by dollar amount. Most lease "savings" come from consolidating office space due to remote work policies and workforce reductions. These are likely genuine savings.
✅What's Actually Verified
Not all of DOGE's claimed savings can be independently verified. Here's what we found when cross-referencing their data with federal databases:
⚠️ Verification Problems
103 contracts claimed by DOGE cannot be found in the official federal procurement database. These represent phantom savings — either the contracts never existed, were misidentified, or the claimed values are incorrect.
| Agency | Claimed Savings | Verification Rate | Red Flags |
|---|---|---|---|
| USAID | $28.4B | 100% | ✓ |
| Department of Health and Human Services | $25.1B | 100% | ✓ |
| Department of Defense | $14.1B | 100% | ✓ |
| Department of Energy | $10.1B | 100% | ✓ |
| Department of Air Force | $6.6B | 100% | ✓ |
| Department of Agriculture | $3.7B | 100% | ✓ |
| Department of the Interior | $3.2B | 100% | ✓ |
| Department of Treasury | $3.1B | 100% | ✓ |
| Environmental Protection Agency | $2.6B | 100% | ✓ |
| Department of State | $1.7B | 100% | ✓ |
🧮How 'Savings' Are Calculated
Understanding DOGE's methodology reveals why their numbers are so inflated. They use the maximum possible contract value, not actual spending or future obligations.
📋 DOGE's Calculation Method
Take ceiling value of contract
Use the maximum amount the government could pay, not what it actually paid
Ignore remaining obligations
Don't subtract what was already paid or delivered
Don't account for replacements
Assume terminated contracts won't be replaced with new ones
Add it all up
Present the total as "savings" without caveats
If I terminate a $10 million, 5-year IT contract after 4 years, DOGE would claim $10 million in savings. The reality? I've already paid $8 million, saved $2 million, and will probably spend $3 million on a replacement contract. Net savings: -$1 million.
This methodology explains why DOGE's numbers are so disconnected from budget reality. Real budget analysts calculate savings as the difference between what you would have spent and what you actually spend. DOGE calculates "savings" as the sum of maximum contract values, regardless of actual fiscal impact.
📊The Reality Check
Independent analysis by POLITICO, CBO, and GAO suggests DOGE's actual savings are a fraction of their claims. Here's a realistic assessment:
❌ DOGE Claims
✅ Reality Check
📈 Why Such a Big Difference?
- • Contract backfill: 70% of terminated contracts have been replaced with new ones at similar cost
- • Already paid: Most contracts were 60-80% complete when terminated
- • Termination costs: Early termination fees, legal costs, and transition expenses
- • Service degradation: Cost of reduced service quality and capability gaps
- • Grant replacement: States and nonprofits filling gaps with alternative funding
- • Administrative overhead: Cost of reviewing and terminating 29,591 agreements
🎯The Concentration Problem
DOGE's claimed savings are heavily concentrated in a small number of large contracts. This creates a "wall of receipts" illusion where thousands of small actions mask the reality that most savings come from just a few dozen decisions.
🎪 The Theater of Small Contracts
60% of DOGE's contract terminations were under $100,000 — but they represent only 0.1% of claimed savings. These small contracts create impressive-looking spreadsheets but minimal fiscal impact. Meanwhile, the top 10 contracts account for 43% of all claimed savings.
Translation: DOGE is optimizing for volume of actions rather than fiscal impact. It's easier to terminate 100 small contracts than to find real waste in large ones — but it doesn't move the budget needle.
⚖️Our Verdict
DOGE deserves both credit and criticism. They've forced a necessary conversation about government efficiency, but their accounting is closer to marketing than budget analysis.
✅ What DOGE Got Right
- • Identified genuine redundancy in federal contracting
- • Created transparency in government spending
- • Real savings of ~$5 billion annually is meaningful
- • Forced agencies to justify every contract and grant
- • Demonstrated that government can act decisively
❌ What DOGE Got Wrong
- • Inflated savings claims by ~20x actual impact
- • Used ceiling values instead of net fiscal impact
- • Ignored replacement costs and service degradation
- • Focused on volume of actions over quality of savings
- • Created unrealistic expectations for future efficiency efforts
DOGE's real achievement isn't the $110 billion in claimed savings — it's proving that government spending can be systematically reviewed and reduced. The methodology was flawed, but the principle is sound.
Even $5 billion in annual savings represents meaningful progress. That's enough to fund the entire EPA for a year, or provide significant tax relief. The problem isn't that DOGE achieved nothing — it's that they overclaimed by such a massive margin that they've damaged trust in future efficiency efforts.
Future administrations should build on DOGE's systematic approach while adopting more honest accounting. The federal government does need efficiency reforms. But they need to be based on real numbers, not inflated marketing claims.
Explore More DOGE Analysis
Dive deeper into the data behind DOGE's claimed savings.