Washington, D.C. – Just one month after its creation, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is touting $65 billion in savings, while rolling out a new “Agency Efficiency Leaderboard” to track cost-cutting efforts across federal agencies.
Key Takeaways:
- DOGE claims to have saved $65 billion by eliminating waste, fraud, and unnecessary spending.
- A new Agency Efficiency Leaderboard will rank government agencies based on cost-cutting progress.
- Critics dispute the savings figures, arguing that some “canceled” contracts were already spent or allocated by Congress.
- Supporters, like economist EJ Antoni, argue the exact number doesn’t matter—what matters is that spending is being reduced.
EJ Antoni, Economist at the Heritage Foundation:
“They are moving so quickly. It is staggering that in just weeks, they’ve managed to save us billions. Imagine what will happen as they continue getting better and better.”
What Is the “Agency Efficiency Leaderboard”?
Tracking Cost-Saving Efforts Across Agencies
- The leaderboard ranks federal agencies based on their contribution to DOGE’s cost-cutting mission.
- Departments eliminating the most waste will be recognized for their efficiency.
- The public will be able to track which agencies are cutting spending and which ones are lagging.
DOGE’s Current Estimate:
- $65 billion in savings so far (subject to revision as more data becomes available).
- The goal is to push agencies to be more accountable and reduce inefficiencies.
DOGE Statement on Savings Total:
“We acknowledge that not all agency data is available yet, and our savings estimate may change as more accurate information comes in.”
Disputes Over DOGE’s Savings Figures
Legacy Media Pushes Back on DOGE’s Claims
- Outlets like The Washington Post challenge the accuracy of DOGE’s $65 billion savings estimate.
- Critics argue that many of the “canceled contracts” were already spent or approved by Congress.
EJ Antoni on Media Criticism:
“Haggling over the actual dollar amount is missing the point. The important thing is that DOGE is chipping away at massive federal spending.”
Why Critics Say the Savings Are Overstated
- Some contracts were set to expire anyway and weren’t new cost savings.
- The federal budget is complex, and cutting jobs doesn’t always result in immediate financial gains.
Economist Justin Wolfers’ Take on DOGE Savings:
“If you want real impact, you have to cut spending by billions, not millions. These ‘savings’ are barely moving the needle.”
Is DOGE’s Rapid Cost-Cutting Sustainable?
Moving Fast, But Will It Last?
- Supporters praise DOGE’s aggressive start but acknowledge it’s too soon to measure long-term impact.
- Critics worry that hasty cuts could hurt essential government services.
- Some Republicans are calling for a more measured approach to ensure critical programs aren’t disrupted.
Antoni on DOGE’s Speed:
“Just because something won’t immediately fix the entire budget doesn’t mean you don’t do it.”
