Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency: A Lack of Transparency and Accuracy
Introduction: A Promise of Transparency Unfulfilled
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was launched with a bold promise: to make government operations more transparent and accountable while saving taxpayers billions of dollars. However, the group’s recent actions have raised serious concerns about its commitment to transparency and the accuracy of its claims. Despite initial efforts to share detailed data on its website, DOGE has increasingly obscured its activities, making it difficult for the public and journalists to verify its assertions. This shift has undermined one of Musk’s core promises: that the group would operate with “maximal transparency.”
The Shift in Tactics: From Transparency to Obscurity
Initially, DOGE posted detailed information about the federal grants and contracts it claimed to have canceled, allowing the public to fact-check its work. For example, the group included federal identification numbers for grants in the source code of its website, enabling watchdogs like The New York Times to cross-reference these claims with federal spending databases and interview affected organizations. However, after several news reports highlighted errors in DOGE’s data, the group changed its approach. It began removing identifying details from its website, making its claims nearly impossible to verify.
This shift was a significant retreat from transparency. DOGE’s website, once a window into the group’s activities, now features incomplete and unverifiable claims. As of Wednesday, the group claimed to have saved taxpayers $115 billion, but only a fraction of this amount was itemized. The lack of detail has made it increasingly difficult to assess the group’s impact or hold it accountable for its actions.
Errors and Misinformation: A Pattern of Inaccuracy
DOGE’s claims have been repeatedly called into question due to glaring errors and misunderstandings. For instance, the group initially posted incorrect savings figures, confusing billions with millions and triple-counting savings from individual contracts. It even took credit for canceling contracts that had ended under previous administrations, such as one terminated during President George W. Bush’s tenure. After these mistakes were exposed, DOGE quietly removed some of its largest claims, but errors still persist.
One recent example involved a claim of saving $1.9 billion by canceling an IRS contract for tech help. However, this contract was actually terminated under President Joe Biden, not by DOGE. Despite this, the claim appeared on DOGE’s website, was deleted, and then restored without explanation. Such inconsistencies have raised questions about the group’s understanding of federal operations and its willingness to correct its mistakes.
The Grant Disbursements: Exaggerated Savings and Misunderstandings
DOGE’s latest claims focus on grant payments, which are often disbursed to nonprofits and nongovernmental organizations for specific services. The group asserted that it had saved taxpayers $10 billion by terminating 3,489 federal grants. However, the details provided on its website—such as the names of agencies and dollar amounts—were insufficient to identify the specific grants in question. While the source code initially included federal identifiers, DOGE later removed this information, making independent verification impossible.
Journalists from The New York Times managed to fact-check some of the claims by accessing the identifiers before they were removed. Their investigation revealed that at least five of the 20 largest “savings” were exaggerated. For example, DOGE claimed to have saved $1.75 billion by cutting a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). However, the nonprofit organization that received the grant, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, stated that the grant had not been terminated and that all funds had already been paid out, making the claimed savings zero.
Nonprofits Speak Out: Misleading Claims and Misunderstandings
Other nonprofits also reported inaccuracies in DOGE’s claims. For instance, DOGE claimed to have saved $83.6 million by terminating a grant to EngenderHealth, a nonprofit focused on family planning in developing countries. However, the organization’s CEO, Traci Baird, explained that the group had only been promised $1.2 million, with $500,000 already paid out. The actual savings from terminating the grant would have been around $700,000—far less than DOGE’s claim.
Nonprofits highlighted that DOGE appeared to misunderstand how federal grants work. Many grants include a ceiling value, which is the maximum amount the government might pay, but actual payments are often negotiated separately and may be much lower. By treating the ceiling value as a guaranteed payout, DOGE overstated its savings. A White House official defended the group’s actions, arguing that canceling grants could prevent future spending, but nonprofit leaders countered that savings can only be claimed for funds that were actually promised.
The Broader Implications: Erosion of Trust and Accountability
The lack of transparency and accuracy in DOGE’s claims has sparked criticism from watchdog groups and experts. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argued that DOGE’s decision to withhold information was a direct response to criticism, making it harder for the public to question its actions. Similarly, Gary Kalman of Transparency International U.S. emphasized that if DOGE’s efforts are truly supported by the public, the group should be eager to provide detailed evidence of its cuts.
By failing to disclose specifics and repeatedly making unverifiable claims, DOGE risks eroding public trust in its mission. While the group’s goal of cutting waste may resonate with many, its opacity and inconsistencies undermine its credibility. Without meaningful transparency, it becomes impossible to hold DOGE accountable for its actions or assess the true impact of its efforts. The result is a loss of faith in a group that once promised to bring clarity and efficiency to government operations.