Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was touted as a revolutionary effort to slash wasteful spending and fraud in the federal government. However, despite its initial fanfare, DOGE has struggled to deliver on its promises. In reality, the agency failed to make any significant dent in federal spending, with critics arguing that it may have even inflicted lasting damage by chasing Musk's own fantasies of waste and inefficiency.
When Musk first launched DOGE, he claimed it could save the federal government at least $2 trillion. However, after Trump's inauguration, the goal was reduced to $1 trillion, then to a modest $150 billion. Despite this, DOGE's efforts have been shrouded in mystery, with much of what the agency has done remaining unclear.
In fact, an investigation by The Guardian found that DOGE claims of cost-cutting and fraud-fighting are often exaggerated or unreliable. For example, the agency's own tracking system contains "egregious errors" and its accounting methods are suspect. Moreover, Democrats investigating DOGE reported that it may have caused around $21.7 billion in waste.
Furthermore, government spending actually increased under DOGE, with no noticeable impact on the month-to-month budget after cuts began. The Cato Institute reported that the federal government spent $7.6 trillion in the first 11 months of calendar year 2025, approximately $248 billion higher by November 2025 compared to the same month in 2024.
Musk's allies have tried to spin DOGE as having a "higher purpose" beyond its initial promise, arguing that it was meant to fundamentally reform government by eradicating taboos around hiring and firing, expanding the use of untested technologies, and lowering resistance to boundary-pushing start-ups seeking federal contracts. The Cato Institute celebrated DOGE for producing the largest peacetime workforce cut on record.
However, not everyone shares this rosy view. Elaine Kamarck, director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution, warned that DOGE "cut muscle, not fat" because they didn't really know what they were doing.
Despite the mixed assessment of its impact, Musk's allies continue to defend DOGE as a necessary effort to push back against bureaucratic inefficiency. But it seems likely that even Musk would agree that DOGE failed to uncover the vast fraud he continues to predict exists in government – and that its legacy will be a subject of ongoing debate.
When Musk first launched DOGE, he claimed it could save the federal government at least $2 trillion. However, after Trump's inauguration, the goal was reduced to $1 trillion, then to a modest $150 billion. Despite this, DOGE's efforts have been shrouded in mystery, with much of what the agency has done remaining unclear.
In fact, an investigation by The Guardian found that DOGE claims of cost-cutting and fraud-fighting are often exaggerated or unreliable. For example, the agency's own tracking system contains "egregious errors" and its accounting methods are suspect. Moreover, Democrats investigating DOGE reported that it may have caused around $21.7 billion in waste.
Furthermore, government spending actually increased under DOGE, with no noticeable impact on the month-to-month budget after cuts began. The Cato Institute reported that the federal government spent $7.6 trillion in the first 11 months of calendar year 2025, approximately $248 billion higher by November 2025 compared to the same month in 2024.
Musk's allies have tried to spin DOGE as having a "higher purpose" beyond its initial promise, arguing that it was meant to fundamentally reform government by eradicating taboos around hiring and firing, expanding the use of untested technologies, and lowering resistance to boundary-pushing start-ups seeking federal contracts. The Cato Institute celebrated DOGE for producing the largest peacetime workforce cut on record.
However, not everyone shares this rosy view. Elaine Kamarck, director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution, warned that DOGE "cut muscle, not fat" because they didn't really know what they were doing.
Despite the mixed assessment of its impact, Musk's allies continue to defend DOGE as a necessary effort to push back against bureaucratic inefficiency. But it seems likely that even Musk would agree that DOGE failed to uncover the vast fraud he continues to predict exists in government – and that its legacy will be a subject of ongoing debate.
I gotta say, I'm kinda disappointed in how DOGE turned out. I mean, Elon's all about innovation and cutting wasteful spending, but it seems like they just ended up chasing their own tails instead 
. The whole $2 trillion goal thing was just too optimistic from the start, if you ask me 
. And now we're seeing that government spending actually increased under DOGE? That's not what I'd call a success story 
.
. The whole thing just feels like a big mess, you know? 
And don't even get me started on the "egregious errors" in their tracking system... that's just red flag after red flag 
.
. I mean, I know they said they were cutting costs and all, but if you're not actually making a dent, then what are you doing? It's like trying to cut grass without even mowing 
.
.
). Maybe Elon can just admit that he got a little carried away and we move on? 
.
. They said they'd cut waste and fraud, but all we see is more spending 
. And what about those "egregious errors" in their tracking system 
. But Elaine Kamarck said they just cut fat, not muscle 
. That doesn't sound like saving money at all 
. It seems like DOGE was more of a PR stunt than actual reform 
.
. What really gets me is that they're trying to spin this as some kind of revolutionary effort, but the truth is just that Elon Musk was kinda full of hot air 
. The fact that they've actually increased government spending and caused more waste is pretty disappointing 
. And let's be real, $21.7 billion in waste? That's not exactly a drop in the bucket 
. I guess only time will tell if DOGE will leave a lasting impact or just fade away into obscurity 
.
.
. The fact that their tracking system has errors and accounting methods are sketchy? That's not good 
. And those $21.7 billion in waste? Not exactly what I'd call success 
. And who knows, maybe we'll learn something from their mistakes 
.