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

politics

31107 readers
1893 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.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 42 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

TLDR: D.O.G.E. saved next to nothing and cost the government money.

And killed 4.5 Million Children.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

This is the answer. They likely DESTROYED our long-term viability.

[–] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Its goal wasn’t saving money, don’t pretend it was. Its goal was destroying parts of the government the oligarchs didn’t like, and/or wanted to take over for themselves.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

True that, the attempted privatization of the flight controllers and the TSA is a good example.

[–] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 5 points 1 month ago

Exactly. And the SpaceX contracts.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just one more way Putin waged a war against the US without lifting a finger. Destroy from the inside.

[–] 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.

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

Even so, this is incredibly short-sighted.

Governments need to calculate long-term impacts of everything they do, and I tell you doge cost the USA more money than it "saved".

It all starts to make sense when you realize that the US government has turned into a gigantic money laundering machine, for the benefit of the Trump family of course.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah further down they think it actually lost a minimim of about $130 Billion

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.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago

DOGE was a success only in that is canned all the investigations into Musk's crimes. The costs are incalculable and ongoing.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Super cool of the media to drop this on Friday afternoon when nobody cares

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I wonder about the DOGE bill in the long run. Including the costs of rebuilding important infrastructure they destroyed just for fun.

[–] breezeblock@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Lies all the way down

[–] FrankFrankson@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When you include all the legal fees surrounding DOGE I bet the true total is negative. When you include the damage caused by the decisions to do shit like cutting the screw fly breeding program the total gets even more negative.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In the post above it is ALREADY Negative BEFORE considering legal fees or loss of income due to IRS cuts.

The net is negative, the question is how many hundred billions.