A recent spotlight on the Trump administration’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by adviser Elon Musk, has brought to light a perplexing issue: nearly 40% of the federal contracts that DOGE claims to have canceled offer no actual savings. Though the department touts billions in reduced costs, fresh analysis and the government’s own data contradict those assertions, raising serious questions about the effectiveness — and the legality — of DOGE’s methods.

According to official figures, DOGE announced the termination of 1,125 federal contracts in a bid to cut wasteful spending. However, 417 of those agreements were already fully paid or legally obligated, rendering their cancellation meaningless for cost-cutting purposes. The total value of these contracts is around $478 million — a sum that the administration still treats as “savings,” despite the fact that taxpayers have already footed the bill.

“It’s akin to taking back used ammunition once it’s been fired,” says Charles Tiefer, a retired law professor who specializes in government contracting, speaking to PBS. In other words, canceling contracts whose costs have already been disbursed accomplishes little beyond creating disruptive headlines.

Critics argue that DOGE’s approach is more theatrical than substantive. Observers note it has canceled contracts for media subscriptions, training programs, software services, and other items where the government’s financial obligations were already met. Tiefer describes this as a “slash and burn” methodology, warning it can damage agency operations. He suggests a more collaborative process with contracting officers and inspectors general could yield actual savings, rather than simply voiding contracts after the money is spent.

Meanwhile, DOGE’s own budget has surged — nearly doubling in a matter of days from $6.75 million to $14.44 million, despite beginning with a modest $750,000. Detractors also highlight a troubling absence of oversight on the department’s spending habits or the Trump administration’s own expenses, including millions of taxpayer dollars spent on golf trips.

Legal and ethical concerns further surround DOGE. Courts have temporarily restricted DOGE’s access to highly sensitive government systems, and the department has already dismissed thousands of federal employees, sometimes mistakenly targeting personnel crucial for national security. Reports of racist and misogynistic activity among DOGE staffers have drawn additional criticism, including the resignation and subsequent reinstatement of one member with offensive social media posts.