this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2026
113 points (99.1% liked)

politics

31114 readers
2110 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When Donald Trump took office in 2025, DOGE's head at the time, Elon Musk, had pledged to cut spending by $2 trillion

With the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created to overhaul federal spending, slamming reports that it has been dissolved, enhanced scrutiny had grown on the savings the agency could achieve during its tenure.

Addressing reports of its dissolution, the agency wrote on X: "As usual, this is fake news from @Reuters. President Trump was given a mandate by the American people to modernize the federal government and reduce waste, fraud and abuse. Just last week, DOGE terminated 78 wasteful contracts and saved taxpayers $335M. We’ll be back in a few days with our regularly scheduled Friday update."

How Much Did DOGE Really Save?

DOGE claimed billions in government savings through cancelling contracts, terminating grants and renegotiating leases. According to its website, the department reached $214 billion in savings as of November 24, estimating this to be worth $1,329.19 per taxpayer.

These savings were attributed to "asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions."

However, multiple analyses suggest the real savings fell far below DOGE's own estimates. In February, former Labour Department chief economist Betsy Stevenson said its total at the time was likely between $1 billion and $7 billion, rather than the $55 billion claimed. In August, Politico reported that of $32.7 billion in contract-related savings it could verify, the true figure was closer to $1.4 billion.

A CBS News investigation further found that DOGE had repeatedly inflated the value of cancelled contracts, including one it claimed was worth $8 billion, when the actual amount was $8 million.

How Much Was Spent in Running DOGE

Beyond questions over its accounting, DOGE's actions may have cost the government money rather than saved it. In April, the Partnership for Public Service estimated $135 billion in losses during the department's first 100 days, citing reduced productivity, repeated "fire-and-rehire cycles," and paid leave. The analysis did not include litigation costs or reduced tax revenues linked to cuts at the IRS.

DOGE was also a key driver of government job losses. In a blog post last week, Kupor said 68,000 people had been hired in 2025, while approximately 317,000 employees had departed.

When Donald Trump took office in 2025, DOGE's head at the time, Elon Musk, pledged to cut spending by $2 trillion, later revising the target to $1 trillion. To achieve this reduced figure, DOGE would have needed to deliver savings averaging $55.6 billion a month—far higher than the amounts now believed to have been achieved.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah but we opened ourselves up to this kind of manipulation by allowing an oligarchy to rise.