World
US watchdog questions DOGE savings claims
A review of the US body tasked with reducing government spending has found several issues with its reported savings calculations.
A review by a United States watchdog has cast doubt on billions of dollars in government savings claimed by the body previously tasked with slashing federal expenditure.
According to reporting by wire services, the watchdog conducted an assessment of the Department of Government Efficiency, commonly referred to as DOGE. The review concluded that several of the organisation's calculations regarding its proposed savings were either incorrect or entirely lacked supporting evidence.
The body had previously claimed to have identified approximately 110 billion US dollars in potential savings within the federal budget. However, the watchdog's findings suggest that these figures cannot be substantiated under closer scrutiny, pointing to significant issues in the methodology used to calculate the numbers.
Specific details of which exact departments or programmes were targeted in the flawed calculations remain limited, and the watchdog has not yet publicly itemised every discrepancy. It is currently unconfirmed how many of the individual cost cutting proposals are affected by these errors, or whether the entire 110 billion dollar figure will now be discarded by federal officials.
The findings represent a setback for advocates of the high profile spending review, which had promised to streamline the American bureaucracy and eliminate what it described as historic waste. Critics of the initiative have pointed to the review as evidence that the proposed savings were unrealistic, while proponents are yet to release a detailed defence of their original calculations.
Observers will watch to see whether the proponents of the efficiency initiative issue a formal response to the watchdog's criticisms of the savings figures.
This report draws on original reporting by Wire report.
Dedicated to a Stronger Victoria.
A message from the editor, August
Every story here is free to read. Only readers keep it that way.
We take no government money, run no paywall, and answer to nobody in Spring Street. That independence is paid for by a small number of readers, not the many who benefit from it. If just one in a hundred of today's readers gave $8 a month, our Victorian politics coverage would be funded for the year.
- Funds reporting, not shareholders
- Cancel in one click, anytime
- Supporter badge and reply access
Prefer a one-off? Send a tip. It takes about twenty seconds.