The Real Cost Of DOGE: How A Government Efficiency Plan Misses The Mark

 

When former President Donald Trump announced the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the idea initially held promise. Led by tech billionaire Elon Musk, the initiative was framed as a bold attempt to root out inefficiencies, eliminate waste, and save $2 trillion from the federal budget. A lofty goal—but one that quickly veered off course.

Instead of targeting major areas of spending like the Department of Defense or Medicare—where fraud, redundancy, and budget bloat are well-documented—DOGE focused its first efforts on the relatively small U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). With an annual budget of around $40 billion—less than 1% of total federal spending—USAID became the surprising scapegoat of the new department's first high-profile crackdown.

DOGE officials, led by Musk, painted USAID as a hub of corruption, with Musk going so far as to call it a “criminal organization.” The agency, known for providing medical, nutritional, and humanitarian aid abroad, saw its staff abruptly fired and programs cut, despite no concrete evidence of large-scale fraud. Analysts warned that the result could be catastrophic, potentially leaving millions of vulnerable people without access to basic resources.

The decision to attack foreign aid wasn’t just fiscally questionable—it was politically strategic. Rather than risk backlash by touching widely supported domestic programs like Social Security or Medicare, DOGE targeted something that polls show many Americans are ambivalent about: spending on foreign nations.

When DOGE did turn its gaze to Social Security, it again chose spectacle over substance. The department claimed to have found millions of deceased individuals on the Social Security rolls—implying widespread fraudulent payments. But the reality? These were old personnel files with names that had never been removed, not evidence of ongoing fraud or improper payments. Almost none of these individuals were still receiving benefits.

Compare this approach to that of the 1990s “Reinventing Government” initiative under former Vice President Al Gore. That effort, credited with saving the government $140 billion, worked collaboratively with agencies and Congress. It identified overlapping functions and legal roadblocks, carefully implementing changes with precision and cooperation. DOGE, in contrast, has favored mass firings and headline-chasing, with little regard for downstream consequences—like the risk that firing thousands of IRS employees could lead to reduced tax collection and, ironically, higher deficits.

Despite all the noise, it’s clear where the real money is: entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), defense, and interest on the national debt. These areas account for roughly 85% of federal spending. Many of these programs are, in fact, highly efficient—mostly consisting of automatic payments and requiring minimal administrative overhead.

If DOGE truly wanted to make a dent in the deficit, it would confront the other side of the ledger: revenue. America’s national debt has ballooned not just because of spending, but because of decades of tax cuts. According to one estimate, the Bush and Trump tax cuts alone added $10 trillion to the national debt and account for more than half of the rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio since 2001. The U.S. now has one of the lowest tax revenue rates among wealthy nations.

One of the most effective moves DOGE could make? Let the Trump-era tax cuts expire, as scheduled by law. Doing so would slash an estimated $4.5 trillion from the national debt over the next decade—far more than any currently proposed spending cuts.

But that solution is politically inconvenient. Instead, DOGE is more likely to continue spotlighting minor inefficiencies, like redundant software in the EPA, saving a few hundred million dollars—a symbolic gesture amounting to just 0.001% of the 2025 federal budget.

In the end, DOGE’s performance so far reveals more about political theater than real reform. Cutting bloat and inefficiency is a worthy goal—but it requires facts, balance, and political courage. Not just flashy announcements and soft targets.