5 DOGE Cuts That Didn’t Pan Out in 2025
Written by
Kerra Bolton
Edited by
Rebekah Evans
Commitment to Our Readers
GOBankingRates' editorial team is committed to bringing you unbiased reviews and information. We use data-driven methodologies to evaluate financial products and services - our reviews and ratings are not influenced by advertisers. You can read more about our editorial guidelines and our products and services review methodology.
20 Years
Helping You Live Richer
Reviewed
by Experts
Trusted by
Millions of Readers
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced in 2025 that its budget actions saved $214 billion through staff reductions, contract terminations and program cuts.
The Trump administration said the measures marked major progress toward fiscal discipline. However, analysts reviewing the data found that many of those savings were overstated, temporary or unverifiable. Below is a look at the top DOGE cuts that did not pan out in 2025.
Also here are the least and most effective DODE cuts.
DOGE’s $214B Savings Claim
DOGE reported that it reduced federal spending by $214 billion in fiscal year 2025, a 3% decrease from the prior year.
Reality: According to CBS analysts said the reduction represents about 3% of the $7 trillion federal budget. It’s a modest change compared with annual spending growth of roughly $300 billion and the actual reductions are hard to confirm.
“It has been very difficult to nail down a precise estimate of the spending reductions that DOGE actually implemented,” said Wayne Winegarden, economist at Pacific Research Institute. “DOGE claims it saved $214 billion. There are reasons to be skeptical.”
Federal Workforce Hiring Freezes and Job Cuts
DOGE said workforce cuts and hiring freezes across federal agencies would reduce costs and improve efficiency, as reported by NPR.
Reality: Many positions were later reinstated or remain under legal review, limiting lasting savings.
“The savings are hard to verify because DOGE was not [as] transparent as promised … and many of the staff cuts were later reversed,” Winegarden said. “Other staff cuts are still being challenged in courts.”
Contract Terminations and Cancellations
Earlier this year, Fox News reported DOGE announced the elimination of 108 “wasteful contracts” and said the contracts had a ceiling value of $250 million and projected savings of $70 million.
Reality: Independent data from GovSpend show that while DOGE tracked about $329 billion in contract value, only $2.51 billion had been formally de-obligated, meaning the funds were released but not necessarily saved.
Federal Program Cuts
DOGE highlighted the 2025 Rescissions Act, which canceled about $9 billion in previously approved spending, including funds for foreign aid and public media, per AP News.
Reality: A rescission removes unspent funds but doesn’t change future budgets or the largest programs, so the overall fiscal impact is limited.
“The federal government spends the vast majority of its budget (93% in FY2025) on very few programs, mostly income transfers to citizens,” Winegarden said. “If we are going to address the government’s unsustainable fiscal situation, we have to address the programs that account for the majority of the spending. DOGE did not do that.”
A $5B Budget Misstep
DOGE recommended that the White House use a “pocket rescission” to withhold about $5 billion in foreign-aid funds at the end of the fiscal year, arguing it would reduce unnecessary spending.
Reality: According to Politico, a federal judge later ruled the maneuver illegal, finding that it violated Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending. Winegarden said the administration should have worked through Congress to pursue legitimate budget reforms instead of relying on procedural shortcuts.
“As opposed to getting Congress, the branch of government empowered to spend money, to pass the rescission, the pocket rescission used budget games to hold off spending until the fiscal year ended,” Winegarden said.
“The DOGE plan was structurally unsound. Congress has the power of the purse,” he added.
Editor’s note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on GOBankingRates.com.
More From GOBankingRates
