A nonpartisan federal watchdog has concluded that the Department of Government Efficiency, the cost-cutting initiative led initially by Elon Musk, overstated its reported savings and offered little transparency about how those figures were calculated.
The Government Accountability Office found that many of the savings posted on DOGE’s public “Wall of Receipts” were either incorrect, unsupported by evidence, or reflected actions already underway before the initiative existed. The findings undercut the sweeping fiscal claims that defined the program’s brief tenure.
DOGE began publishing its estimated savings on February 17, 2025, and reported reaching $110 billion by July 7, spanning a wide range of federal contracts, grants and leases. That total fell far short of the $2 trillion in cuts the effort had once promised.
Auditors identified specific discrepancies. Of 264 leases flagged for termination, 108 were already in the process of being terminated when DOGE was established. In another instance, the initiative claimed $1.7 billion in savings from a Department of Defense IT services contract, yet no action was ultimately taken to end the contract, meaning no savings materialized.
The report further noted that DOGE was not transparent about the methodologies used to calculate its numbers, and that its officials did not respond to requests for information from investigators.
“In addition, when government data are not reliable, it can hinder the public’s trust in government,” the report stated, concluding that the data-quality issues limited the value of the Wall of Receipts for policymakers.
Musk, who has drawn attention for a range of high-profile ventures and forecasts about the future of the economy, initially led DOGE’s operations but stepped back from the role after only a few months. President Donald Trump’s executive order establishing the initiative set its operations to conclude on July 4.
The review was requested by Democratic Senators Gary Peters of Michigan and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Peters characterized the effort as a “slapdash and deceptive” one that caused real damage, while stressing broad bipartisan support for rooting out genuine waste and fraud.
The findings add to ongoing debate over the effectiveness of the initiative and its lasting impact on federal operations, as lawmakers weigh how future efficiency drives should measure and report their results.