That’s not a rounding error — that’s manufacturing numbers out of air.
How DOGE created the illusion:
Counted the maximum possible value of contracts (ceiling values) rather than actual spending.
Counted the same contract in multiple places.
Quietly removed 1,000+ contracts from their own transparency dashboard.
Used “savings” from unawarded or canceled contracts as if that were money returned to taxpayers.
This is like claiming you “saved $40,000” because you decided not to buy a Tesla.
2. Meanwhile, Trump Is Increasing Real Spending
Even while claiming big savings, Trump is injecting spending elsewhere:
Massive increases for immigration enforcement and detention.
Expansions of ICE operations and facilities.
Contracting out veterans services, which tends to increase federal cost, not reduce it.
Shifting more federal functions to private contractors, who charge premium rates.
Large legal-related travel and security expenses, which you and I both pay for.
And each executive agency has its own restructuring costs. “Streamlining” usually means hiring consultants, restructuring operations, and paying early termination fees. All of that costs money.
3. Spending and Savings Aren’t Matched
He’s “saving” imaginary numbers but spending real dollars.
When you compare the two:
The made-up DOGE savings don’t come close to paying for the increased federal expenses.
There is no evidence those savings offset expenditures anywhere in the budget.
The numbers only make sense if you’re reading a campaign brochure, not a budget ledger.
4. Why He Does This
Trump repeats a pattern he’s used in business:
Inflate revenue or savings claims to create an image of success.
Hide or delay expenses.
Blame the shortfall on enemies or sabotage.
Keep moving forward without reconciling the books.
It works politically because people hear the big number, not the audit.
The Bottom Line
Yes — Trump is spending far more than he’s “saving.” Even a basic household budget would show the mismatch.
And the bigger problem: He’s using the illusion of savings to justify spending that is politically convenient but financially reckless.
Comments are Disabled