Welcome to the Department of Government Efficiency, where the announcement gets a standing ovation and the cost tracking has apparently gone out for lunch. If you want to know whether the operation saved money, please enjoy this confident facial expression while somebody looks for the spreadsheet.
Key takeaways
- GAO estimated about $6.7 billion in 2025 paid-leave salary costs associated with the deferred resignation program.
- That is a cost estimate for one program, not a calculation of DOGE’s total net loss.
- The useful question is whether credible, complete accounting supports the savings claims.
The number that belongs on the table is roughly $6.7 billion. It needs an explanation, not a ceremonial chainsaw.
The receipt is real. The genius certificate is ours.
In its September 15, 2026, report, the Government Accountability Office estimated $9.5 billion in federal paid administrative leave salary costs for 2025. Approximately $6.7 billion was associated with the deferred resignation program. The arrangement generally let departing workers stop working while receiving pay until their resignation or retirement date.
This is where our cartoon hands Trump and Musk a completely imaginary efficiency certificate. Musk has shredded the cost-tracking paperwork and proudly announces that he saved money on keeping track. The scene and dialogue are invented. The uncomfortable accounting question came from a congressional watchdog.
A savings claim needs a minus sign.
There can be short-term costs in a workforce reduction that produces later savings. Fine. Then show both. Paying someone to leave a job can reduce future payroll; it can also create immediate costs and service problems. The claim deserves a time period, a method, and a way to check the result.
What it does not deserve is the accounting equivalent of pointing at an empty office and shouting, “Look how efficient!” An empty desk cannot tell you what it cost to empty it, whether the work moved elsewhere, or what the public stopped receiving.
Our verdict on the sales pitch is simple: if the achievement needs this much cheering before the arithmetic is settled, the arithmetic should move to the front of the meeting. Somebody can unplug the applause sign for ten minutes.
Even the cost category needed repair.
GAO found that OPM lacked an easy, accurate way to isolate paid-leave costs for workforce reduction. It also identified reporting limitations, including holidays recorded as administrative leave. The watchdog recommended clearer disclosure and a separate reporting category; OPM agreed. Those limitations matter when interpreting the estimates.
The full GAO report explains why identifying short-term costs is necessary to assess longer-term savings. Apparently, counting the money is still part of saving the money. This may come as a terrible shock to anyone who thought naming the operation Efficiency finished the assignment.
The workers were not the joke.
Employees who accepted an offer from their employer did not invent the policy or the victory speeches. Our target is the leadership that sold a sweeping government makeover and should be able to account for it. Blaming the people who followed the program’s terms would be a cheap escape from the question.
Meanwhile, Musk is returning to an advisory role through Project Meridian. Before somebody puts the next grand government idea on the easel, perhaps the previous one could produce a report card that does not rely on the recipient grading himself.
Our Receipts page is built around a dull but useful principle: let people read the source. A nickname can be funny. A billion-dollar claim needs paperwork.
Questions the certificate forgot
Was $6.7 billion DOGE’s entire cost?
No. GAO linked that estimate to paid administrative leave salary costs under the deferred resignation program in 2025. It is not the total cost of every DOGE activity.
Does that amount prove there were no future savings?
No. Future payroll reductions would need to be measured alongside costs and other effects. The estimate does not settle the net result.
What did GAO recommend?
Disclosing unresolved data limitations and separately recording administrative leave used for workforce reduction, so the cost of that activity can be assessed more reliably.