President Donald Trump fired inspectors general across 18 federal agencies in his first week in office, and then another IG in February, in a systematic ousting of the independent watchdogs who monitor the federal government for waste, fraud and abuse. Now a new report released by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee says the potential savings the IGs had identified before being fired exceeds what Elon Musk claims he has saved with his so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
As Musk reduces his involvement in the Trump administration, the report’s numbers help hammer home just how poorly and foolishly he has pursued “efficiency.” He rode into Washington with his DOGE cowboys, confident that their rogue outsider status gave them a unique ability to drain “the swamp” of excess spending. But they not only failed to come anywhere close to hitting their goals — they may have underperformed compared with the personnel who were already in the government to help them achieve their purported goal.
Inspectors general are independent, nonpartisan professional watchdogs.
Musk’s promised pot of savings began at $2 trillion, before shrinking to $1 trillion and then to $150 billion. His estimated savings have ticked up again slightly to an estimated $170 billion, or 8.5% of his initial promise.
The Senate Democrats’ report crunched the numbers and found that the 19 fired IGs had identified and recommended $175 billion in potential savings through audits, investigations and efficiency proposals. That’s $5 billion more than Musk’s estimate after months of chaotic hacking away at the administrative state. (While the offices of inspectors general still exist, the firings of the IGs had a demoralizing and chilling effect on the offices, according to the report, and the main duties of rooting out waste, fraud and corruption appear to have been given to Musk.)
Granted, the report’s calculation of the IGs’ potential savings wouldn’t necessarily end up hitting its topline number. But the source of its estimates for cost-cutting is far more reliable than Musk’s estimates.
Inspectors general are independent, nonpartisan professional watchdogs. They report to respective agency heads, but those agency heads can’t alter their reports, which must be shared with Congress. They have a track record of rooting out waste — in fiscal year 2024, all IGs in the federal government had “over $71 billion in combined monetary impact” through their efficiency initiatives, audits and investigations, according to the Democrats’ report. These efforts include things like questioning unnecessary spending, finding and cracking down on illegal federal contracts, sniffing out public officials inappropriately using money and tracking down actors trying to defraud the government through illicit procurement schemes.
By contrast, Musk’s savings estimates aren’t trustworthy, given the long record of Musk’s exaggerating savings using incorrect calculations, such as double-counting canceled federal contracts, claiming savings over already canceled contracts and not accounting for the added cost of revived contracts. Musk’s website for tracking DOGE savings doesn’t acknowledge or account for errors when they’re identified by the media. Those errors are simply deleted. Many of the savings DOGE has under its belt could be ephemeral and overturned by Congress or another administration. Moreover, the durability of Musk’s cuts is also far more questionable, since they’ve often been implemented with such brute force and speed that they’re often overturned. Many have been reversed by the courts. Others, such as Ebola prevention efforts, were reversed after Musk admitted they were dangerous and “accidentally” canceled. (Along the way, a number of federal agencies have simply ignored or declined to enforce his efforts to cull employees through efficiency efforts.) Musk also clashed with many of Trump’s Cabinet secretaries over cuts that they didn’t want to implement. Some watchdog estimates suggest that Musk’s efforts might end up costing the federal government more than it saves, in part because of lost productivity, the high costs of rehiring and lost revenue collection capacities. “So it’s, like, it’s not easy,” Musk said when reflecting on his progress after 100 days. Many of Musk’s cuts have been so controversial and politically risky — such as his attacks on Social Security and medical research funding — that Republican lawmakers have objected to codifying them into law. Which is to say that many of the savings DOGE has under its belt could be ephemeral and overturned by Congress or another administration. Perhaps more important than comparing the saving numbers is noting how Trump and Musk have tried to sideline effective tools for rooting out waste and good government. As Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., the ranking member of the committee that produced the report, said in a statement: “If the Trump Administration were serious about eliminating waste, it would rely on the proven track record of independent Inspectors General. Instead, President Trump’s decision to fire them will not only undermine efforts to reduce waste — it sends a message of intimidation to anyone who wants to hold this administration accountable.”
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. 
