DOGE Fraud Claims Debunked: Why Musk's Allies Say It Still Wins

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by Elon Musk, promised a revolution in federal spending. However, determining its actual success is a complex issue, heavily influenced by perspective. Increasingly, evidence suggests DOGE fell significantly short of its ambitious goals, particularly its primary aim of curbing federal expenditure. Recent statements from Musk himself, coupled with ongoing scrutiny, paint a picture of an initiative that, while perhaps well-intentioned, ultimately failed to deliver on its promises. This article delves into the claims, counterclaims, and the evolving narrative surrounding DOGE, examining why some of Musk’s allies continue to defend its legacy despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

Musk's Shifting Stance on DOGE

Just weeks ago, Elon Musk publicly downplayed DOGE’s achievements, describing it as “a little bit successful” in a podcast interview. This marked a notable departure from his earlier, more optimistic pronouncements. More recently, he revived unsubstantiated claims of widespread government fraud, estimating it at a staggering $1.5 trillion per year – potentially even higher – despite DOGE’s efforts to address it. These claims, echoed on his platform X, raise questions about the true motivations and objectives behind the initiative.

Musk’s abrupt departure from DOGE in May, following a clash with Donald Trump over a budget bill, further fueled skepticism. He expressed concerns that the bill would undermine DOGE’s work, and now appears less convinced of its overall value. While initially considering DOGE his “best side quest,” he now admits he likely wouldn’t helm such an agency again if given the chance. He’s even suggested learning a valuable lesson about the perils of attempting to run the US government like a business, stating, “Best to avoid politics where possible.”

Initial Promises vs. Harsh Realities

When initially proposed during the 2024 campaign trail with Donald Trump, DOGE was touted as a solution to end government waste and fraud. Musk initially claimed it could save the federal government “at least $2 trillion.” However, this goal was rapidly scaled back. First to $1 trillion, then to a more modest $150 billion as DOGE faced immediate criticism and resistance. The Cato Institute reported this dramatic reduction in ambition.

Despite promises of transparency, the actual operations of DOGE remain largely shrouded in mystery. The government has actively impeded lawsuits seeking access to documents detailing DOGE’s cuts. Furthermore, the agency’s cost-cutting tracker on its website has been criticized for containing “egregious errors” and employing unreliable accounting methods, as reported by GearTech.

The Numbers Don't Add Up

Even accounting for potential overestimation, DOGE’s claimed savings fall far short of initial projections. The agency reports cutting approximately $214 billion in government spending and canceling $61 billion in contracts. However, Democrats investigating DOGE suggest the agency may have actually created around $21.7 billion in waste. The Cato Institute estimates that DOGE’s workforce reductions – approximately nine percent of the federal workforce – may have led to more costly contracts and potentially degraded services.

Crucially, government spending actually increased during DOGE’s tenure. The Cato Institute reported that the federal government spent $7.6 trillion in the first 11 months of 2025, approximately $248 billion higher than the same period in 2024. This directly contradicts DOGE’s stated objective of reducing federal expenditure.

The "Higher Purpose" Argument

As Musk distances himself from DOGE and questions its effectiveness, his allies are attempting to reframe the narrative. They argue that DOGE’s true purpose wasn’t solely about immediate cost savings, but rather about fundamentally reforming government. Five anonymous allies told GearTech that the goal was to dismantle “taboos” surrounding hiring and firing, encourage the adoption of untested technologies, and lower barriers for start-ups seeking federal contracts. The aim, they claim, was to make the government operate more like a private company.

The libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, acknowledged DOGE’s achievement in enacting “the largest peacetime workforce cut on record,” even while conceding its limited impact on federal spending. They noted that DOGE’s target was to reduce the budget in absolute terms, not relative to projections.

DOGE's Lingering Presence

Despite Musk’s reservations, DOGE continues to exist as a decentralized entity, with staff members embedded in various agencies to continue identifying and eliminating alleged waste and fraud. There are concerns that the White House might attempt to “re-empower” DOGE for further government-wide cuts, but Musk has repeatedly stated he would not lead such an effort again. The Cato Institute supports Musk’s judgment, stating, “The evidence supports Musk’s judgment.”

The Institute concluded that while DOGE had no noticeable effect on spending, it did significantly reduce federal employment, a feat comparable to demobilization after major wars. They suggest Musk should view DOGE’s impact more positively, despite its failure to achieve its primary financial goals.

Cutting Muscle, Not Fat?

However, not everyone agrees with this assessment. Elaine Kamarck, director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution, told GearTech in November that DOGE “cut muscle, not fat,” arguing that the agency lacked the expertise to make informed decisions about workforce reductions and program cuts. This suggests that DOGE’s actions may have inadvertently harmed essential government functions.

Key Takeaways and Future Outlook

• DOGE failed to deliver on its ambitious promises of significant cost savings. Federal spending increased during its operation, and its claimed savings are disputed.
• Transparency was lacking. The government actively resisted efforts to scrutinize DOGE’s operations and verify its claims.
• Musk’s own assessment has evolved. He now expresses doubts about the value of DOGE and suggests he wouldn’t repeat the experiment.
• Allies are attempting to reframe the narrative, emphasizing a “higher purpose” of government reform beyond immediate financial gains.
• The long-term impact of DOGE remains uncertain. While it achieved a significant workforce reduction, the consequences of those cuts are still unfolding.

Over time, a more complete picture of DOGE’s operations and impact will emerge. However, it appears increasingly likely that even Elon Musk would acknowledge that DOGE failed to uncover the vast fraud he continues to predict exists within the government. The initiative serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of applying private-sector principles to the complexities of public administration, and the importance of transparency and accountability in government spending.

The debate surrounding DOGE highlights the ongoing tension between calls for government efficiency and the need to protect essential public services. While the desire to reduce waste and fraud is laudable, it must be balanced with a careful consideration of the potential consequences of drastic cuts and a commitment to evidence-based policymaking. The future of government efficiency initiatives will likely hinge on learning from the successes and failures of DOGE, and adopting a more nuanced and pragmatic approach.