Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reported over 29,000 cuts to federal government spending, including the cancellation of billion-dollar contracts and thousands of grants. However, contrary to Musk's assertion that DOGE would reduce federal spending by $1 trillion before October, federal spending actually increased during this period.

A New York Times analysis indicated that many of the savings claimed by DOGE were incorrect. Although the group did implement thousands of smaller cuts, these had a negligible impact on the overall federal budget. For instance, the 13 largest claims of cancelled contracts and grants were found to be inaccurate, with two defense contracts falsely reported as terminated, which DOGE claimed saved taxpayers $7.9 billion.

The analysis highlighted that among the 40 largest claims made by DOGE, only 12 were accurate, raising questions about the integrity of the group's budget-cutting efforts. The chaotic nature of DOGE's operations made it difficult to distinguish between genuine cuts and misleading claims. The Times concluded that the majority of DOGE's reported savings were exaggerated or erroneous, undermining the group's stated goal of transparency and efficiency.

Despite Musk's initial promises, DOGE's operations became opaque, characterized by errors and a lack of accountability. The group’s budget-cutting efforts have had lasting negative effects on various aid programs, leading to the cancellation of essential services that supported vulnerable populations. For example, the abrupt termination of grants by DOGE affected food aid programs in Ethiopia and educational initiatives in Nepal, with significant consequences for those reliant on such support.

The Trump administration's broader budgetary authority lies with Congress, which has not enacted substantial cuts to major federal spending areas such as healthcare and social security. While DOGE did achieve some actual cuts, the overall impact on federal spending was minimal, and the disruptions caused by its actions have raised concerns about the humanitarian implications of such budgetary decisions. The analysis underscores the need for careful scrutiny of government efficiency initiatives, particularly those that may prioritize fiscal goals over social welfare.