As of the most recent update on doge.gov, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has claimed $206 billion in total savings: $59 billion from 13,231 contract terminations, $44 billion from 15,488 grant cancellations, $140 million from 384 lease endings, plus asset sales and fraud deletions. Let's recap.
By June 8th, non-defense obligations dropped 22.4% (~$25 billion) year-over-year. USDA alone axed 420 grants worth $2.5 billion, including "gender-lensed curricula" ($150k) and climate studies ($100k). DOGE exposed $4.7 trillion in untraceable Treasury payments (due to optional codes), mandating fixes that rejected $334 million in improper requests by April. FEMA fraud, such as $59 million diverted to migrant housing, led to reforms. USAID transferred to OMB. Workforce and DEI Purge: DOGE embedded teams in 15+ agencies, leading to mass layoffs (e.g., probationary staff at NPR/PBS) and DEI program eliminations via a three-phase plan. DOGE persists as a "way of life," with staff embedded permanently and loyalty tests for hires.
DOGE has faced extensive litigation since its inception. Critics, including labor unions, federal employees, privacy advocates, and Democratic-led states, have challenged DOGE's authority to access sensitive data, implement mass firings, terminate contracts and grants, and dismantle agencies. These lawsuits often invoke the Administrative Procedure Act, Privacy Act, constitutional separation of powers, and civil service protections. While DOGE has encountered setbacks, such as temporary restraining orders blocking access to certain Treasury records or layoffs at specific agencies, it has secured several notable legal victories, particularly in appeals courts and the Supreme Court.
DOGE's early legal momentum came from swift appellate and Supreme Court interventions, often on the "shadow docket" (emergency applications without full briefing). These rulings have largely held firm, allowing DOGE to continue its mission of targeting $1 trillion in savings through contract terminations (e.g., 15,488 grants worth $44 billion as of recent updates), workforce reductions, and agency overhauls.
August 12th, in a case brought by labor unions (including the American Federation of Government Employees) and military veterans, the 4th Circuit rejected an injunction to block DOGE from accessing sensitive personal data, such as Social Security numbers, citizenship status, addresses, and incomes, stored at agencies like the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Social Security Administration (SSA). The court ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing, as DOGE's access did not constitute a "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act and failed to demonstrate imminent injury. This decision, authored in part by Trump appointee Judge Julius Richardson, cited a prior Supreme Court order from June 2025 granting similar access to SSA records. It enabled DOGE teams to scrutinize data for waste, fraud, and redundant spending, aligning with Executive Order 14158's mandate to modernize federal IT and cut inefficiencies. Critics argued it risked privacy violations under the Privacy Act, but the ruling stood, allowing DOGE to embed teams in over 15 agencies without interruption.
June 6th, the Supreme Court issued two unsigned orders favoring the administration in Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and U.S. DOGE Service v. Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). In the first, the Court lifted a district court injunction, permitting DOGE analysts to access SSA records for efficiency audits, overruling objections from unions about privacy and overreach. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, warning of "unfettered access to millions of Americans' data." The second paused a D.C. district court order requiring DOGE to release internal communications and financial disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), shielding the initiative from transparency demands by watchdog group CREW. These "shadow docket" wins, without oral arguments, expedited DOGE's operations and set precedents for executive authority in efficiency reforms.
These victories underscore a judicial deference to presidential directives on efficiency, especially under a conservative Supreme Court majority. Ongoing cases could shift this, but DOGE's legal position remains stable allowing continued cuts amid controversy.