DOGE WALL OF RECEIPTS:

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2026

GAO-26-108615

United States Government Accountability Office

A report to congressional requesters

Contact: Jessica Lucas-Judy at LucasJudyJ@gao.gov

What GAO Found

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) began posting its estimated savings on a web page known as the Wall of Receipts on February 17, 2025. As of July 7, 2026, the Wall of Receipts reported savings of $110 billion across contracts, grants, and leases, but some savings estimates are incorrect or lack supporting evidence. While DOGE provided some information about estimated savings, several issues limit the transparency and reliability of these reported savings.

·        DOGE was not transparent regarding methodologies used to calculate savings. Specifically, DOGE did not use its stated methodology to calculate the majority of savings associated with the contracts reported as terminated. For grants, DOGE did not provide sufficient information to verify the method used to calculate 96 percent of DOGE-reported savings. Similarly, the Wall of Receipts does not include an explanation of how the savings from terminated leases were calculated.

·        The Wall of Receipts includes leases identified for termination before DOGE was established. Specifically,108 of the 264 leases identified for termination on the Wall of Receipts, about $15.3 million of the total $53.5 million in savings, were already in process for termination when DOGE was established.

·        GAO’s review of selected contracts identified potential cost savings, but the basis for some reported savings is unknown. For example, DOGE reported $1.7 billion in savings on the Department of Defense’s Defense Health Agency contract for IT services at more than 700 military treatment facilities worldwide. While DOGE initially identified the contract for termination, in the end, no action was taken to terminate the contract, or to reduce scope, value, or funding. Thus, no savings were achieved.

While the Wall of Receipts includes some information about the data and sources underlying reported savings, it does not sufficiently disclose limitations affecting data quality. GAO’s key practices for transparently reporting government information state that federal government websites should disclose known data quality issues and limitations.

DOGE launched the initial iteration of the Wall of Receipts in February 2025 less than a month after the entity was established in January 2025. Since the initial launch, there have been no updates on the site to shed additional light on the cost savings methodology or to disclose any data limitations. As of July 7, 2026, the web page remains live. Because U.S. DOGE Service officials did not respond to requests for information, GAO could not determine the reasons why DOGE did not disclose data quality issues and limitations when the website first went live or at any time since then. Publicly reporting government data, such as on the Wall of Receipts, can have significant value. However, conveying the methodologies used to calculate savings, as well as any data limitations on the Wall of Receipts, would provide policymakers and the public with the needed caveats to better interpret and use the information.

Why GAO Did This Study

Federal agencies obligated more than $2 trillion for contracts, grants, and leases in fiscal year 2025. In an effort to transform federal spending and ensure transparency, the President issued several executive orders, including Executive Order 14158 to establish DOGE. Additionally, agencies were directed to establish agency DOGE teams and consult with these teams to review federal contracts, grants, and real estate.

GAO was asked to evaluate DOGE’s savings estimates listed on the Wall of Receipts for contract, grant, and lease terminations. This report assesses (1) the methodologies DOGE used to estimate savings from contracts, grants, and leases reported as terminated, and (2) the extent to which DOGE discloses any data limitations. This review covered savings data reported on the Wall of Receipts for contracts, grants, and leases from January 20, 2025, through July 7, 2026.

GAO analyzed data from the Wall of Receipts, publicly available federal databases, and information sources such as USASpending.gov. GAO also interviewed officials from selected federal agencies about the contracts or leases in their purview. DOGE did not respond to GAO’s request for information or interviews.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Executive Office of the President, through the U.S. DOGE Service, should ensure that known data quality issues and limitations are prominently displayed on the Wall of Receipts. The U.S. DOGE Service did not provide comments on this report.

 

 

 

 

Abbreviations
BIM	Base Infrastructure Modernization
DATA Act	Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014
DOD	Department of Defense
DOGE	Department of Government Efficiency
FAR	Federal Acquisition Regulation
FPDS	Federal Procurement Data System
GSA	General Services Administration
HHS	Department of Health and Human Services
USAID	United States Agency for International Development

 

August 6, 2026

The Honorable Gary C. Peters
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Richard Blumenthal
Ranking Member
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Federal agencies obligated funding of more than $2 trillion for contracts, grants, and leases in fiscal year 2025. In an effort to transform federal spending and ensure transparency, in early 2025 the President directed the heads of federal agencies to implement a series of initiatives to reform government operations. To help advance these initiatives, the President established the United States DOGE Service (also known as the Department of Government Efficiency, hereafter referred to as “DOGE”), and directed agencies to establish DOGE teams to assist in carrying out administration priorities.[1] Executive Order 14222 directed agencies to consult with their agency DOGE teams to review federal contracts, grants, and real estate for termination or modification.[2] In response to this direction from the President, federal agencies have terminated or modified thousands of contracts, grants, and leases since January 20, 2025.

To measure progress and provide transparency into these efforts, DOGE developed a page on its public website, referred to as the “Wall of Receipts.”[3] The Wall of Receipts lists contracts, grants, and leases that DOGE claims have been terminated and associated savings estimates. DOGE released its first estimate of savings claims in February 2025 and continued to update the Wall of Receipts until January 1, 2026. According to the web page, DOGE aimed to present information “in a digestible and transparent manner consistent with applicable rules and regulations.” Such transparency can have value for the public and Congress where information is reliable and usable. Further, access to quality data on federal spending is important for policymaking, transparency and oversight of federal dollars, and fostering public trust in government.

A July 4, 2026 post on an official DOGE social media account indicated that the formal mission of DOGE has come to an end. However, as of July 7, 2026, the Wall of Receipts remains live.

You asked us to evaluate DOGE’s savings estimates listed on the Wall of Receipts, particularly those savings estimates for contract, grant, and lease terminations. In this report we assess (1) the methodologies DOGE used to estimate savings from contracts, grants, and leases reported as terminated; and (2) the extent to which DOGE discloses any relevant data limitations. Our review covered savings data reported on the Wall of Receipts for contracts, grants, and leases from January 20, 2025, through July 7, 2026.[4]

To address our first objective, we reviewed relevant executive orders.[5] We also spoke with knowledgeable agency officials to understand the agency circumstances when contracts and leases were identified for termination.[6] To determine what DOGE reported as savings for terminated contracts, grants, and leases, we analyzed publicly available data from the Wall of Receipts, including total reported savings, savings by agency, and the date DOGE reported contracts, grants, and leases as terminated.

To the extent possible, we linked the reported DOGE data with government databases and information sources, such as the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), USAspending.gov and the General Services Administration’s (GSA) lease tracker.[7] We did so to examine DOGE’s calculations using data from government databases. We determined the data from FPDS, USAspending.gov, and GSA information sources were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of providing insight into how DOGE estimated savings.

To determine how DOGE estimated savings for contracts, grants, and leases, we also reviewed the methodology for calculating savings described on the Wall of Receipts, and any underlying assumptions that were conveyed on the site. Using the Wall of Receipts data, we attempted to determine how DOGE calculated its reported savings. Specifically, we assessed the extent to which DOGE consistently adhered to its stated methodology or used other methodologies.[8]

To further evaluate how DOGE estimated savings, and its methodologies for doing so, we selected nongeneralizable samples of 31 contracts and 12 grants included on the Wall of Receipts for agencies with the greatest reported savings, for a more in-depth review. These agencies were the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Health and Human Services (HHS) for reported savings from terminated contracts, and USAID and HHS for reported savings from terminated grants.[9] We reviewed all 264 GSA leases included on the Wall of Receipts.

For USAID, DOD, and HHS we used random selection within selected subsets of contracts and grants to form a nongeneralizable sample of reported savings for additional review. We requested documentation from the agencies for this sample. We reviewed documentation where it was provided, and we interviewed agency officials to understand the contracts, and leases included on the Wall of Receipts and the circumstances surrounding those terminations. USAID did not respond to our request for information on sampled contracts and grants.[10] HHS provided information on the requested contracts. HHS submitted the requested grant documentation; however, a technology issue prevented proper transfer of these grant documents in a timely manner.[11] We relied on publicly available information on contracts and grants in our sample to inform our review.

To address the second objective, which assesses the extent to which DOGE disclosed any relevant data limitations, we reviewed the Wall of Receipts. We also reviewed our prior work on key practices for transparently reporting government data.[12]

We requested to meet with DOGE and asked for responses to written questions. However, DOGE did not respond to our inquiries. Therefore, we were unable to clarify how DOGE estimated savings when the reported savings did not correspond to their stated methodologies or other calculations.

Additional details about our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2025 to August 2026 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Background

Contracts, Grants, and Leases Included on Wall of Receipts

Contracts, grants, and leases are critical to the success of agency missions.

·        Contracts. Federal agencies use contracts with vendors and organizations to procure a range of products and services such as cybersecurity software, consulting services, and aircraft carriers, among many others.

·        Grants. The federal government uses grants to achieve national priorities through nonfederal parties, including entities such as state and local governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations. Federal grants fund a wide range of public policy initiatives related to healthcare, infrastructure, income security and education, among others.

·        Leases. GSA serves as the federal government’s primary civilian real estate agent. GSA provides space to executive branch tenant agencies in federally owned property as well as leased space in privately owned buildings.

The federal government spent about $2 trillion annually on contracts, grants, and leases in fiscal years 2024 and 2025 (see table 1).

Dollars in Billions
Government Action	Fiscal Year 2024	Fiscal Year 2025
Dollars obligated on contracts	756.18	792.77
Dollars obligated on grants	1,209.50	1,241.93
Lease portfolio (annual rent)	5.78	5.75
Total Dollars Obligated on Contracts, Grants, and Leases	1,971.46	2,040.45

Source: GAO analysis of USAspending.gov data as of April 2026 and General Services Administration Leasing Inventory, as of October 2025.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

Establishment of DOGE and Wall of Receipts

Executive Order 14158 established the United States DOGE Service (hereafter referred to as DOGE) within the Executive Office of the President, to be led by a U.S. DOGE Service Administrator.[13] The executive order also established the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, headed by the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator.[14] While the executive order does not call for the termination of the broader DOGE entity, the DOGE Temporary Organization terminated on July 4, 2026. DOGE and the temporary organization’s mission was to achieve DOGE’s agenda, including maximizing government efficiency. The executive order also called for the heads of executive branch agencies to establish DOGE teams at their respective agencies that coordinate with the U.S. DOGE Service and advise the agency on implementation of the DOGE agenda. Figure 1 depicts key executive orders and a timeline of events related to the Wall of Receipts. While the last update to the Wall of Receipts was made on January 1, 2026, the Wall of Receipts remains live as of July 7, 2026.

Notes:

Exec. Order No. 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 29, 2025); Exec. Order No. 14158, Establishing and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency,” 90 Fed. Reg. 8441 (Jan. 29, 2025); Exec. Order No. 14169, Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid, 90 Fed. Reg. 8619 (Jan. 30, 2025); Exec. Order No. 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025); Exec. Order No. 14222, Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Cost Efficiency Initiative, 90 Fed. Reg. 11095 (Mar. 3, 2025); and Exec. Order No. 14332, Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking, 90 Fed. Reg. 38929 (Aug. 12, 2025).

While the last update to the Wall of Receipts was January 1, 2026, the Wall of Receipts remains live as of July 7, 2026.

Information Included on Wall of Receipts

DOGE began posting its estimated savings from contracts, grants, and leases on the Wall of Receipts on February 17, 2025. As of July 7, 2026, across contracts, grants and leases included on the Wall of Receipts, DOGE reported savings of $110.3 billion (see table 2). Including additional categories beyond contracts, grants, and leases, DOGE reported savings of $215 billion.[15] We identified issues limiting the transparency and reliability of these reported savings, which we will discuss later in the report.

Award type	Number of contracts, grants, and leases reported on Wall of Receipts	DOGE-reported savings (dollars)
Contractsa	13,440	61.02 billion
Grants	15,887	49.21 billion
Leasesb	264	113.00 million
Total	29,591	110.34 billion

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Wall of Receipts (https://doge.gov/savings) as of July 7, 2026.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

^aWhile DOGE’s savings web page reported 13,440 contract terminations, we identified three instances where DOGE reported savings for one contract actually included multiple contracts; thus the 13,440 contracts DOGE reported represent 13,476 contracts.

^bAs discussed later in this report, the $113 million in reported savings for the 264 leases was inaccurate. The information on the Wall of Receipts actually summed to $53.5 million.

DOGE posted updates approximately bi-weekly from February 2025 to May 2025 and then less frequently from June 2025 to January 2026.[16] In addition to reported savings for each award type, the Wall of Receipts generally includes:

·        the agency associated with the reported contract, grant, or lease;

·        for contracts, the vendor and a description of the contract;

·        for grants, the recipient and description of the grant; and

·        for leases, the location of the lease, the lease square footage, and a description of the type of lease termination.

The Wall of Receipts also includes an application programming interface, which provides access to additional fields not listed on the web page, such as the contract or grant award number.

DOGE reported most of the contracts, grants, and leases on the Wall of Receipts in the months immediately following issuance of Executive Order 14222 in February 2025 (see fig. 2). For example, DOGE reported 65 percent of the total terminated contracts, which accounted for 49 percent of the reported savings, by April 2025. For grants, DOGE reported 92 percent of the total grant terminations, accounting for 75 percent of the reported savings, by that same time.

The total number of leases DOGE reported as terminated and associated savings also decreased during the time frame of our review. For example, on March 30, 2025, DOGE reported 679 leases as terminated, totaling approximately $400 million in reported savings. From March 30, 2025, to January 1, 2026, 415 of the leases DOGE reported as terminated—accounting for about $346 million in reported savings—were removed from the Wall of Receipts because the leases were no longer being considered for termination. Following these changes, as of July 7, 2026, 264 leases, which DOGE reported as terminated, remained on the Wall of Receipts.

Figure 2 depicts the number of contracts, grants, and leases reported on the Wall of Receipts by month from January 2025 through June 2026.

Note: While the Wall of Receipts reported 13,440 contract terminations, we identified three instances where DOGE reported savings for one contract actually included multiple contracts; thus the 13,440 contracts DOGE reported represent 13,476 contracts. The number of leases are the net leases identified for termination reported on the Wall of Receipts after some leases identified for termination were later rescinded. As of July 7, 2026, DOGE’s last update to the Wall of Receipts was in January 2026; however, the last reported month of termination was October 2025.

Government Databases and Information Sources

Authoritative government data on contracts, grants, and leases are available in various databases and information sources: FPDS, USAspending.gov, and GSA’s lease tracker.

FPDS

FPDS is the authoritative source for the federal government’s procurement data.[17] The system serves as the centralized contract database, repository, and comprehensive web-based tool for agencies to report and review their contract actions.[18] The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires federal agencies to submit certain procurement data to FPDS.[19] The data it contains inform Congress, federal managers, oversight bodies, and the public about government contracting activity, including how many dollars agencies obligate for procurements.

USAspending.gov

USAspending.gov is a public facing repository of spending data for the federal government. The data on USAspending.gov include contracts, grants, loans, and other awards. This information is sourced from agency financial systems and data from external government-wide reporting systems, including FPDS. Unlike FPDS, USAspending.gov contains information on federal grants. The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) requires federal agencies to submit spending data for presentation on USAspending.gov.[20] The act requires federal agency expenditures to be disclosed and agency spending information to be linked to federal program activities so that policymakers and the public can more effectively track federal spending.

We have issued a series of reports on the DATA Act and USAspending.gov and made numerous recommendations.[21] Our prior reports identified significant data quality issues and challenges that may limit the usefulness of the data for Congress and the public.[22]

GSA’s Lease Tracker

GSA maintains an internal data tracker to help track and process terminations of federal agency real property leases. For the purposes of our review, GSA officials noted that these data are the most accurate information source for lease terminations. GSA’s tracker includes data fields such as annual rent, lease expiration date, and planned and actual termination dates; these fields are needed to calculate savings from leases identified for termination. The data in GSA’s lease tracker are populated from the Real Estate Across the United States real property management system, GSA’s primary tool to track and manage all of the government’s real property owned and leased assets.

Contract Termination Process

The FAR outlines the procedures and responsibilities for contract terminations and related actions, including the rights and obligations of both contractors and contracting officers.[23] The government may unilaterally terminate a contract, in whole or in part, for convenience when spending priorities or needs change or when it is in the government’s interest.[24] The government may also completely or partially terminate a contract for default (cause) due to the contractor’s actual or anticipated failure to perform, such as missing delivery schedules or violating contract terms.[25]

When the government terminates a contract for convenience, the contracting officer must issue a written termination notice to the contractor that states the effective date and whether the termination is whole or partial.[26] Unless the contracting officer provides an extension, the contractor generally must submit a termination settlement proposal within 1 year after the effective date of the termination.[27] When the government terminates a contract for convenience, it can incur termination settlement costs. Settlement costs are provided in the FAR, and include costs incurred, reasonable profit on performed work, disposition of inventories, settlement of subcontracts, and specified administrative and legal costs.[28]

Grant Termination Process

Generally, agencies can terminate awarded grants, consistent with the underlying authorization or grant agreement.[29] For example, the grant agreement could be terminated for failure to comply with terms and conditions, by mutual agreement, by the recipient, or if the award no longer effectuates agency priorities. Generally, termination requires written notice from the awarding agency.[30]

Upon termination of the grant, a grant recipient must close out the grant award pursuant to the terms of the grant and agency requirements, including by submitting required reports.[31] Grant closeout is a final point of accountability for grantees that helps to ensure they have met all financial requirements and have provided final reports, as required. During the closeout period, grantees must submit any remaining costs payable to them. Generally, within 120 days after the completion of the award, grantees must submit all financial, performance, and other reports as required by the terms and conditions of the award, including closeout costs for payments. The federal agency must make every effort to complete all closeout actions no later than 1 year after the end of the period of performance.

Termination of a federal grant may incur costs that would not have arisen had the grant not been terminated. These costs can include settlement expenses, such as accounting and legal costs, among others. For example, if authorized by the terms and conditions of the grant, the awarding agency may make a settlement for any upward or downward adjustment to the federal share of costs after the closeout reports are received.

Lease Termination Process

According to GSA officials, the process to terminate a lease is generally initiated when a tenant agency notifies GSA that it no longer needs the space.[32] GSA leases are negotiated with the private building owner and may authorize the government to terminate without penalty after a fixed or “firm term.”[33] A lease’s firm term ends at a pre-determined expiration date, at which point a lease enters its “soft term.”[34]

In general, when a federal lease is terminated, additional funding is usually required to vacate the space or move to a new location. For example, there are costs associated with identifying an alternative location, moving furniture, and designing and completing construction or tenant-requested improvements in the alternative space.

DOGE-Reported Savings Data for Contracts Lack Transparency; Savings for Selected Contracts Are Limited

Several issues limit the transparency and reliability of contract information on the Wall of Receipts. As of July 7, 2026, DOGE reported more than $61 billion in savings associated with 13,476 contracts that it reported as terminated. However, the Wall of Receipts does not include identifying information for 27.8 percent of the contracts, including all the contracts at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and 245 contracts at other agencies. In addition, the contract data on the Wall of Receipts that we could link to FPDS have other limitations. For example, DOGE reported all contracts on the Wall of Receipts as terminated, but our analysis of FPDS data shows that almost 2,000 contracts were not terminated. Moreover, DOGE did not apply its stated methodology for calculating more than half of the reported savings. In addition, DOGE’s stated methodology has limitations. For example, it does not reflect important aspects of contracting, including costs associated with contract terminations. Based on a detailed review of 21 selected contracts at DOD and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), we identified potential cost savings of $77.8 million in deobligated funds that could reduce federal spending or be spent on higher priority agency needs. We also identified other actions such as reducing total contract value or contract scope that could avoid future costs in some circumstances, which we consider to be potential cost avoidance. In some cases, however, work and associated costs were shifted to other contracts, which could constrain or eliminate potential savings. We also could not determine the basis for a portion or all of the DOGE reported savings for many of the 21 contracts we reviewed.[35]

Missing and Unreliable Data Limit Ability to Independently Assess Reported Savings

Data Gaps Limit Transparency

As of July 7, 2026, DOGE reported more than $61 billion in savings associated with 13,476 contracts that it reported as terminated. However, data gaps limit the ability to independently corroborate the data with other sources of federal contract information. Specifically, the Wall of Receipts does not include identifying information, such as contract numbers, for 3,751 (27.8 percent) of the 13,476 contracts it reported as terminated. These missing data on the Wall of Receipts include all 3,506 contracts reported as terminated at USAID, and 245 contracts at other agencies.[36] As such, we could not identify them in FPDS or take steps to corroborate the reported savings. Table 3 summarizes the extent to which contracts reported as terminated on the Wall of Receipts can be linked with contracts in FPDS.

Contract status	DOGE contracts reported as terminated	Percent of contracts	DOGE-reported savings (dollars in billions)	Percent of savings
Linked to FPDS	11,620	86.2	$53.8	88.2
Not Linked to FPDS	1,856	13.8	$7.2	11.8
Total	13,476	100.0	$61.0	100.0

Source: GAO analysis of data from Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) as of April 2026 and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Wall of Receipts (https://doge.gov/savings) as of July 7, 2026.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

Note: DOGE’s savings web page reported 13,440 contract terminations. We identified three instances where DOGE reported savings for one contract actually included multiple contracts; thus the 13,440 contracts DOGE reported represented 13,476 contracts.

To enable further analysis, we took additional steps to augment what was reported on the Wall of Receipts. Specifically, by the end of March 2025, USAID contract-identifying information was redacted from the Wall of Receipts. However, we downloaded USAID contract information before this occurred. We were therefore able to match the Wall of Receipts data to FPDS for 1,864 of the 3,506 contracts.[37] We also identified additional DOD contracts in FPDS using the “description” field on the Wall of Receipts.[38] Ultimately, we matched 11,620 contracts, which includes all but 1,856 of the total 13,476 contracts for which DOGE reported savings. Thus, while missing data remain, we reduced the percentage of contracts that could not be identified in FPDS from 27.9 percent to 13.8 percent, improving our ability to conduct further analysis.

DOGE Did Not Accurately Report Actions Taken on Contracts or Consistently Use Its Stated Methodology for Calculating Savings

Based on our analysis of FPDS data we found that DOGE did not accurately report actions taken on contracts. Specifically, DOGE reported all 13,476 contracts on the Wall of Receipts as terminated. Our analysis of the underlying FPDS data found that 43.2 percent of the reported savings are associated with contracts that were completely or partially terminated.[39] The remaining contracts were either not terminated, or we could not determine their status because DOGE did not provide enough data for us to link them to data in FPDS.[40] Figure 3 identifies the status of contracts in FPDS as of April 2026, and the DOGE reported savings associated with them.

Notes: Terminated contracts have a termination action in FPDS. FPDS does not distinguish between complete and partial terminations. Therefore, an undetermined portion of the terminated contracts is still active. Contracts that were not terminated may have been subject to other actions including deobligations or reduction in total contract value. Department of State officials told us that because of the reduction in force at the U.S. Agency for International Development, there were several thousand contracts that were never updated in FPDS to report them as terminated. As a result, the FPDS data may marginally overstate the percentage of DOGE-reported savings associated with contracts that were not terminated. DOGE data did not provide enough identifying information for us to link some contracts to FPDS. Percentages in the figure do not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

No termination action was taken on 2,503 of the contracts, representing $27.4 billion of reported savings.[41] In these cases, another action, such as reducing the total contract value or deobligating some funds could have occurred. Furthermore, DOGE reported no savings for 5,812, or 43.2 percent of all contracts it included on the Wall of Receipts.

We also found that DOGE did not consistently use its stated methodology for calculating savings or disclose limitations in a sufficient manner. This lack of methodological transparency further limits the reliability of the reported data. The Wall of Receipts states that savings were determined by calculating the difference between the contract’s total value, which is defined as the potential expenditure including options, and the amount currently obligated on the contract.[42] We attempted to replicate DOGE’s savings estimates based on our analysis of FPDS data. We found that DOGE followed its stated methodology for 7,710 contracts associated with 27.5 percent, or $16.8 billion, of the reported savings. For 3,910 contracts associated with 60.7 percent of the associated savings, we found that either DOGE used other calculations, such as a reduction in the total contract value or deobligation of funds from the contract, or we could not determine what method DOGE used to calculate the reported savings. DOGE did not respond to our request for interviews or clarification. Therefore, we were unable to obtain additional information about how the reported savings were calculated for those contracts for which the DOGE methodology was undetermined (see table 4).

	DOGE contracts reported as terminated	DOGE-reported savings (dollars in billions)	Percent of savings
DOGE followed its stated methodologya	7,710	$16.8	27.5
DOGE did not follow its stated methodologyb	3,910	$37.0	60.7
Unknown due to missing contract identifiers	1,856	$7.2	11.8
Total	13,476	$61.0	100.0

Source: GAO analysis of data from Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) as of April 2026 and DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) Wall of Receipts (https://doge.gov/savings) as of July 7, 2026.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

^aThe Wall of Receipts states that savings were determined by calculating the difference between the total contract total value, which is defined as the potential expenditure including options, and the amount currently obligated on the contract.

^bFor 1,431 contracts corresponding to $12.7 billion in reported savings, there was a deobligation or reduction in total contract value equal to the DOGE-reported savings, but this calculation did not correspond to DOGE’s stated methodology of contract value minus obligations. For 2,479 contracts corresponding to $24.3 billion in reported savings (40 percent) the DOGE methodology for calculating savings could not be determined.

Even in cases in which DOGE followed its stated methodology, it did not account for many complexities and nuances of federal contracting or sufficiently identify limitations. For example, the savings reported for terminated contracts do not account for subsequent obligations and deobligations that may be associated with termination settlement costs or contract close out. As such, the amount of reported savings is likely misstated. Finally, whether reductions in contract value will result in savings will depend on circumstances that are not yet known. We provide examples of some of these cases in the following section.

Some Selected Contracts Had Cost Savings, but the Basis for Some Reported Savings Was Unknown, and They Are Not Certain to Be Achieved

In our analysis of 21 selected contracts at DOD and HHS, we found significant variations in the amount of savings the agencies have achieved or could potentially achieve compared to what was reported on the Wall of Receipts, including cases where the basis for the savings is unknown.[43] Our analysis highlights some of the complexity of measuring savings on contracts and the limitations of DOGE’s approach.

We identified $77.8 million in deobligations in total across the 21 selected contracts. We also identified other actions such as reducing total contract value or contract scope that could avoid future costs in some circumstances, which we consider to be cost avoidance.[44] For these actions, savings are not certain to be realized.

How are cost savings defined in the context of federal contracting? For the purposes of this report, we consider cost savings to be financial benefits that result from actions that reduce federal costs or better target federal resources. These actions could be in the form of deobligations—reductions in the amount of funds obligated on a contract—which may allow those funds to be used for other purposes. However, if these funds are then used for similar work placed on a different contract, the amount of actual or net cost savings to the government may be reduced. We consider potential cost avoidance to be actions such as a reduction in the total value of a contract or a decision not to exercise an option period. These actions do not result in immediate savings. Further, if the total contract value is subsequently increased or another contract is awarded for similar work, savings will not be realized. Source: GAO analysis.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

In some cases, we found that agencies extended contracts and awarded new contracts for the same requirements after eliminating work, deobligating funds, or reducing total contract value, which suggests the agencies will not realize all of the reported savings. For example:

·        We found that DOGE reported $62.7 million in savings on a $116.7 million Air Force contract for updating IT systems in support of the Air Force’s transformation initiatives. Air Force contracting officials reported deobligating $21.6 million from the contract while at the same time obligating funding. According to the contracting officer, the agency also modified the contract by eliminating work to be performed and reduced the total contract value by $74.8 million. According to Air Force officials, they subsequently extended the contract by 6 months, which increased the contract value and obligated $7.3 million. This gave them time to award a follow-on contract. Because the requirement still exists and the Air Force continues to meet this need with a new contract, the extent to which the Air Force will realize savings from these actions is unknown.

·        Similarly, DOGE reported more than $28 million in savings on an Air Force contract awarded on behalf of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency for financial management modernization. The agency descoped optional work and option periods and reduced the total contract value of $43.5 million by more than $28 million. However, contracting officials told us that they subsequently extended the contract by 6 months and then awarded another $27.4 million contract, without competing it, to the same contractor to complete the same work. A senior Air Force contracting official stated this approach can result in inefficiencies and cost increases due to higher negotiated labor rates, contractor escalation factors, increased facility and overhead expenses, subcontractor pricing adjustments, transition-related costs, and the loss of pricing efficiencies that may have been available through a timely competitive procurement. The official further noted that actual cost savings are only realized when planned expenditures are avoided or when the government’s total cost to achieve the required capability is reduced.

We identified a number of examples, including the four below, where there does not appear to be a basis for claiming all or a portion of the reported savings:

·        DOGE reported more than $1.7 billion in savings on a DOD Defense Health Agency contract providing IT support at more than 700 military medical treatment facilities worldwide. While DOGE initially identified the contract for termination, DOD program leadership and contracting officials stated that they met with DOGE to discuss the work being conducted under this contract. Following the discussion, DOGE agreed no action should be taken to terminate the contract. Our analysis of contract documentation and FPDS shows that no action was taken to completely or partially terminate the contract, reduce scope or value, or deobligate funds. Thus, no savings were achieved. While no action was taken on the contract, the Wall of Receipts continued to report savings of more than $1.7 billion.

·        DOGE reported $4 billion in savings on an Air Force contract that provides for IT modernization services – known as Base Infrastructure Modernization (BIM) – which will take place over 10 years at more than 187 Air Force locations worldwide. The Air Force reduced the total value of the contract by $3.75 billion, which is a 30 percent reduction from the original value of $12.5 billion. Air Force contracting officials could not explain the discrepancy between the $3.75 billion reduction and the $4 billion in savings that DOGE reported.[45] There is no certainty that the $3.75 billion will be saved. The contract was not terminated. Further, an Air Force official involved in planning and awarding the contract explained that the original total contract value was established based on extensive analysis of requirements and mission needs. He said that if the Air Force is not able to procure needed services under this contract, there may be a need to award new contracts and that the Air Force will miss out on the opportunity to leverage the efficiencies and cost savings already negotiated. He also explained that if obligations approach the total contract value, it can be increased with the required approvals and would likely be approved because of a critical mission need.

·        DOGE reported $14.7 million in savings on a $21.3 million HHS contract for professional support to develop a public health reporting registry. This contract was not terminated, but it was closed when the period of performance ended. In the process of closing the contract, the agency deobligated $141,489 in remaining funding because the contractor earned less than the amount that was obligated on the contract. When the contract was closed, its value was approximately $21.2 million. Thus, the basis for the reported savings is unknown.

·        DOGE reported $6.5 million in savings on a $12.9 million HHS contract for updates to a system for tracking early notification of community-based epidemics. HHS partially terminated this contract and descoped unfunded work potentially valued at more than $2 million. In a subsequent modification, the agency exercised an option and fully funded the remaining work, which increased the contract obligations by $4.5 million. As of January 2026, the contract value was $10.9 million. The contract remains active, and performance is ongoing.

Our sample included four contracts for which DOGE reported no savings, but we found that the agencies had taken action on two contracts which potentially resulted in some savings or future cost avoidance.

For example:

·        DOGE reported no savings for the termination of a DOD contract valued at $184,460 at the time of award for subscriptions to a publication that covers legislative affairs information. DOD terminated the subscriptions along with the remaining option periods valued at $114,460 about 3 months after it exercised the first option year. The agency deobligated $35,600 but was unable to provide evidence that it recouped the deobligated funds.

·        HHS awarded a contract for specialized medical support related to COVID-19 testing access in 2022. The total contract value was $1.1 billion at the time of award. We found that there were no funding actions after 2022, and no option periods were exercised. The agency deobligated approximately $50 million shortly before the contract expired in May 2025. According to agency officials, these funds have been rescinded. The agency deobligated an additional $232,382 when the contract was closed in December 2025. DOGE reported no savings.

See appendix II for additional details on the selected DOD and HHS contracts.

Limited Information Is Available About Grants DOGE Reported as Terminated

DOGE reported $49 billion in savings for 15,887 grants it reported as terminated. However, it is unknown how DOGE calculated those reported savings and what is included in them. This information cannot be examined fully in USAspending.gov due to data limitations on the Wall of Receipts.

Identifying grants DOGE reported as terminated. Approximately one out of every five grants the Wall of Receipts reported as terminated had insufficient data for us to identify them on USASpending.gov and thus corroborate the savings.[46] For example, data on the Wall of Receipts did not provide characteristics such as the type of grant or the type of assistance the grant provides. The unidentified grants accounted for more than 50 percent of the reported grant savings (see table 5).

	DOGE-reported terminated grants	Percent of grants	DOGE-reported savings (dollars in billions)	Percent of savings
Linked to USAspending.gov	12,359	77.8	$23.58	47.9
Not linkeda	3,528	22.2	$25.63	52.1
Total	15,887	100.0	$49.21	100.0

Source: GAO analysis of data from USAspending.gov as of February 2026 and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Wall of Receipts (https://doge.gov/savings) as of July 7, 2026.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

^aDOGE’s data did not provide sufficient detail to identify these grants in USAspending.gov. A total of 3,510 of the grants DOGE reported as terminated were not linked to USAspending.gov. An additional 18 included links to USAspending.gov but no data were available for those links.

The grant savings data listed on the Wall of Receipts were also inconsistent across agencies. Specifically, DOGE did not include USAspending.gov links corresponding to about 98 percent of the reported savings associated with HHS grants it reported terminated. However, DOGE included links corresponding to about 94 percent of the reported savings associated with USAID grants it reported terminated.

Calculating savings. The Wall of Receipts did not provide sufficient information to verify the method DOGE used to calculate savings, or what the savings consisted of, for 13,553 of the 15,887 grants it reported as terminated. This corresponds to about 96 percent of the DOGE-reported grant savings (see table 6).

The Wall of Receipts states that DOGE’s formula for calculating savings is the difference between the total value and the amount currently obligated. However, USAspending.gov, the official source of federal spending information, does not include the total value of individual grants. Therefore, it is unknown how DOGE applied this methodology. To attempt to determine how DOGE calculated its reported savings, we tried to replicate DOGE’s reported savings estimate using other formulas.[47] We applied these formulas to all the grants in the Wall of Receipts we could link to USAspending.gov. With these other formulas, we calculated DOGE’s reported savings estimate for 2,334 grants, corresponding to 4 percent of the total reported savings.

	DOGE-reported terminated grants	DOGE-reported savings (dollars in billions)	Percent of savings
DOGE method not verifieda	13,553	$47.32	96.2
GAO calculations: Three different formulas resulted in same estimate as DOGEb	2,334	$1.89	3.8
Total	15,887	$49.21	100.0

Source: GAO analysis of data from USAspending.gov as of February 2026 and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Wall of Receipts (https://doge.gov/savings) as of July 7, 2026.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

Notes: USAspending.gov data may not include final costs associated with potential settlement. Because of data limitations, our calculations examine the records in USAspending.gov as of February 2026 as opposed to DOGE’s date of termination.

^aThis group includes the 3,510 grants DOGE reported as terminated for which DOGE omitted links to USAspending.gov and 18 grants for which DOGE included links to USAspending.gov but no data were available. The remainder were grants for which DOGE did not provide the method it used to calculate its reported savings.

^bWe attempted to calculate DOGE’s reported savings estimate using three other formulas: (1) obligations less outlays; (2) total funding less obligations; and (3) total funding less outlays. When calculating total funding less obligations, we considered DOGE’s method to be not verified when DOGE savings equaled zero as these instances may be coincidental. When outlays were missing, we treated those as zero. We did not use these calculations as a means of determining savings associated with terminated grants. We cannot verify these savings or definitively determine whether they are understated or overstated based on the data from the Wall of Receipts or USAspending.gov alone. The purpose of this analysis was to attempt to determine how DOGE calculated its reported savings. Similarly, while it is unknown what the missing outlays should represent, for the purpose of trying to understand how DOGE calculated savings we assumed these missing outlays to be zero.

Even for the 2,334 terminated grants for which we could replicate DOGE’s reported savings estimate using other formulas, the amount of reported savings may not be realized. For example, it is unknown what closeout or settlement costs were included in the savings estimates, if any. Agencies collect detailed information associated with termination activities for each grant, but this information, including closeout and settlement costs, is not clearly identified on USAspending.gov. Understanding the extent of cost savings for grants, therefore, would have to be based on documentation for each individual grant. We requested documentation that would include information such as closeout and settlement costs for the 12 grants in our sample from HHS and USAID. HHS submitted the requested documentation; however, a technology issue prevented the proper transfer of these grant documents in a timely manner.[48] USAID did not respond to our request for information on sampled contracts and grants.

The Wall of Receipts Overstated Savings from Real Property Lease Terminations by More than $80 Million

DOGE Overstated Total Lease Savings Reported on the Wall of Receipts by More than $80 Million

As of July 7, 2026, DOGE listed 264 leases for termination on the Wall of Receipts that summed to $53.5 million in savings.[49] However, as noted earlier, DOGE reported an inaccurate total savings of $113 million for these leases, resulting in an overstated total savings of $59.5 million. Because DOGE declined to meet with us, we could not obtain an explanation for the error.

The number of leases identified for termination and associated savings DOGE reported on its Wall of Receipts decreased substantially from March 2025 to June 2026 (see fig. 4). On March 30, 2025, DOGE reported 679 leases for termination on the Wall of Receipts totaling approximately $400 million in savings.[50] Between March 30, 2025, and October 5, 2025, 415 of those leases were removed from the Wall of Receipts, leaving 264 leases for termination and reducing reported savings by $346 million to $53.5 million.

Note: We calculated the total reported savings for this figure by adding the estimated savings for each lease DOGE reported on its Wall of Receipts, rather than reporting the inaccurate total savings of $113 million that DOGE reported on its web page. The information reflects data reported on the DOGE Wall of Receipts toward the end of the month, unless otherwise noted.

DOGE also overstated total savings by including savings from leases GSA had identified for termination before January 20, 2025, prior to DOGE’s establishment. According to GSA officials, 108 of the 264 leases identified for termination on the Wall of Receipts were already in the process of being terminated by GSA when DOGE was established. The associated savings from those 108 leases accounted for roughly $15.3 million of the total $53.5 million in savings from the Wall of Receipts, or 29 percent.

DOGE further overstated savings on the Wall of Receipts from leases identified for termination by $7.3 million compared to data in GSA’s lease tracker, as of March 2026, in three ways:

·        DOGE included estimated savings from 44 leases that were still active (e.g., identified terminations that were later rescinded), according to GSA data. This resulted in DOGE overestimating savings by $5.6 million compared to GSA’s data.[51]

·        DOGE reported savings that were $1.3 million higher than GSA’s data for the 217 leases that had been terminated.

·        DOGE also included savings of approximately $369,000 for three leases scheduled for termination that remain active as of May 2026.[52]

We found that DOGE overstated savings on the Wall of Receipts by $81.1 million. In total, savings from leases identified for termination on the Wall of Receipts was $31.8 million (see fig. 5).

^aNumbers may not add up due to rounding.

^bAdditional costs associated with terminating a lease such as early termination fees or relocation costs are not included in the reported savings.

The Wall of Receipts does not describe how the savings for leases identified for termination were calculated, and DOGE did not respond to our requests for additional information. GSA officials said they estimated savings by multiplying the number of days remaining on the lease at the point GSA returned the space to the building owner by the daily lease rate.[53] We were able to confirm that DOGE used this calculation for the savings reported on the Wall of Receipts for most of the leases identified for termination.

DOGE Further Overstated Estimated Lease Savings by Not Factoring in Additional Costs

DOGE’s reported savings did not include additional costs for terminated leases, such as moving or relocation costs. GSA officials said that, in general, lease terminations or expirations have costs associated with moving to a new location or removing furniture and other property from the leased location. GSA officials said that these costs are factored into the decision to move or renew the lease and can be sizable, which can result in a decision to renew the lease based on cost. However, such costs were not available for the terminated leases because the leases were terminated without factoring in these additional costs.

DOGE also did not factor in any potential early termination fees into its reported savings. Of the 264 leases identified for termination on DOGE’s Wall of Receipts, 30 leases were in the firm term and therefore could have been subject to penalties, such as early termination fees.[54] Specifically, of those 30 leases, according to GSA data, six leases in the firm term were terminated or scheduled to be terminated as of July 7, 2026, and accounted for $5.9 million in estimated savings. However, any additional costs associated with leases terminated in the firm term were not included in DOGE’s reported savings.

In addition, DOGE did not incorporate the extra costs associated with lease terminations that were later rescinded into its reported savings. As leases were initially identified for termination, GSA sent termination notices to the building owners of those 679 leases. Afterward, some tenant agencies submitted requests to rescind their termination. In their requests, agencies provided justification for retaining their space, and GSA largely approved those requests, according to GSA officials. However, we found at least one instance when a lease identified for termination that was later rescinded led to higher costs. Specifically, officials from a tenant agency we spoke with provided an example where the building owner refused to rescind the lease termination, which forced GSA to renegotiate a new lease at a higher rate of over $1.5 million more per year than before with a 5-year firm term.

The Wall of Receipts Does Not Provide Sufficient Information on Data Quality Issues or Limitations

According to our key practices for transparently reporting government information, federal government websites should disclose known data quality issues and limitations, such as issues with the completeness, timeliness, or accuracy of the data.[55] This is important because providing information about the data allows users to determine whether it is suitable for their intended purposes and make informed decisions on whether and how to use it. However, the Wall of Receipts does not sufficiently disclose issues or limitations affecting data quality. The web page does include some information about the data, as shown in figure 6. Specifically, the web page states that the data on the Wall of Receipts represent a subset of contract, grant, and lease terminations and may not be consistent with government databases. It also states when the data were last updated. However, the web page includes limited information on the methodology for calculating reported savings. It does not include information about the data limitations described in this report. For example, the web page does not disclose that reported savings do not account for costs associated with contract termination, grant closeout, and lease termination, or that DOGE’s stated methodology was not consistently used to calculate reported savings.

Figure 6 shows a screen shot of the information about data limitations and methodology displayed on the Wall of Receipts.

DOGE launched the initial Wall of Receipts in February 2025 less than a month after DOGE was established in January 2025.[56] Since the initial launch, there have been no updates on the site that shed additional light on the cost savings methodology or disclose any data limitations. We asked DOGE if they were aware of any data quality issues and limitations, and whether they planned to disclose them on the website. However, DOGE did not respond to our inquiries.

While publicly reporting government data can have significant value, conveying the methodologies used to calculate savings, as well as any data limitations on the Wall of Receipts would provide policymakers and the public with the needed caveats to better interpret and use the information.

Conclusions

The Wall of Receipts provides data to policymakers and the public on DOGE’s estimated savings from termination of contracts, grants, and leases, but some savings estimates are incorrect or lack supporting evidence. The data quality issues identified in this report limit the value of the Wall of Receipts to policymakers. In addition, when government data are not reliable, it can hinder the public’s trust in government. Prominently displaying data limitations would enhance the value of the Wall of Receipts by providing users with the information that they need to interpret and use the data appropriately.

Recommendation for Executive Action

The Executive Office of the President, through the United States DOGE Service, should ensure that known data quality issues and limitations are prominently displayed on the Wall of Receipts. (Recommendation 1)

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to the United States DOGE Service; the Departments of Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and State; the General Services Administration; and the U.S. Agency for International Development for review and comment. The Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Departments of Energy and State, and the General Services Administration, said they did not have any comments on the report. The United States DOGE Service and the U.S. Agency for International Development did not provide comments on the report.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Acting Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Acting Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the General Services Administration, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at https://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at LucasJudyJ@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Media Relations may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Jessica Lucas-Judy
Director, Strategic Issues

Michael Hoffman
Chief Economist, Applied Research and Methods

David Marroni
Director, Physical Infrastructure

Tatiana Winger
Director, Contracting and National Security Acquisitions

This report assesses (1) the methodologies Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) used to estimate savings for contracts, grants, and leases reported as terminated; and (2) the extent to which DOGE discloses any relevant data limitations.[57]

To understand the directions given to agencies, we reviewed relevant executive orders such as Executive Order 14158 establishing DOGE and Executive Order 14222 on implementation of the President’s DOGE Cost Efficiency Initiative.[58] We also spoke with knowledgeable agency officials to understand the agency circumstances when contracts and leases were identified for termination. In particular, we interviewed officials from the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy, and State[59] and the General Services Administration (GSA).[60] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided written responses to our questions. We requested interviews with officials from the U.S. DOGE Service and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) but those officials had not responded as of June 2026.

To determine the methodologies DOGE used to estimate savings, we analyzed publicly available information and data from the Wall of Receipts.[61] The Wall of Receipts and its data include total reported savings, savings by agency, and the date DOGE reported contracts, grants, and leases as terminated. Our review covered savings data reported on the Wall of Receipts for contracts, grants, and leases from January 20, 2025, to July 7, 2026.[62] A July 4, 2026 post on an official DOGE social media account indicated that the formal mission of DOGE has come to an end. However, as of July 7, 2026, the Wall of Receipts remains live. To the extent possible, we linked the DOGE reported data with government databases: the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for contracts, USAspending.gov for grants, and GSA’s lease tracker.[63] We did so to examine DOGE’s calculations using data from government databases.

We assessed the reliability of data from the Wall of Receipts, FPDS, USAspending.gov, and GSA’s lease tracker. We did so by reviewing existing information about the databases and the data they collect. In addition, we conducted electronic testing of all databases to identify missing data, duplicate entries, invalid values, and other data reliability concerns. We interviewed GSA officials to understand the processes by which data from FPDS and GSA’s lease tracker were collected, maintained, and used. We determined the data from FPDS, USAspending.gov, and GSA’s lease tracker were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of providing insight into how DOGE estimated savings and for selecting a nongeneralizable sample.[64] Our report discusses the reliability of the Wall of Receipts data, including instances of incompleteness we identified.

We also reviewed the methodology for calculating savings described on the Wall of Receipts, and any underlying assumptions that are disclosed on the site. The Wall of Receipts states that savings were determined by calculating the difference between the contract’s total value, which is defined as the potential expenditure including options, and the amount currently obligated on the contract.[65] DOGE did not respond to our request for an interview or provide requested documentation. Using the Wall of Receipts data, we attempted to determine how DOGE calculated its savings. Specifically, we assessed the extent to which DOGE consistently adhered to its stated methodology or used other methodologies. We did not use these calculations as a means of determining savings associated with terminated contracts, grants, or leases. We cannot verify these savings or say whether they are understated or overstated based on the data from the Wall of Receipts or FPDS, USAspending.gov, or GSA’s lease tracker alone. The purpose of this analysis was to try to determine how DOGE calculated reported savings.

·        For contracts, we applied DOGE’s stated methodology by calculating the difference between the contract’s total value, which is defined as the potential expenditure including options, and the amount currently obligated on the contract.[66] In addition, we attempted to replicate DOGE’s reported savings estimate using two other formulas: (1) reduction in base value only, and (2) deobligation alone or with a reduction in the base value.

·        For grants, it is unknown how DOGE applied its stated methodology because “total value” is not displayed in USAspending.gov for grants, and the Wall of Receipts site does not say anything further. To try to determine how DOGE calculated reported savings, we attempted to replicate DOGE’s reported savings estimate using three other formulas: (1) obligations less outlays, (2) total funding less obligations, and (3) total funding less outlays.[67]

·        For leases, we used data GSA maintains to track its tenant agencies’ lease terminations to help validate the lease termination data DOGE reported. Specifically, we applied GSA’s methodology by multiplying the number of days a lease was shortened by the daily rent cost.

To further evaluate the methodologies DOGE used to estimate savings, we selected nongeneralizable samples of 31 contracts and 12 grants DOGE reported as terminated at agencies with the greatest reported savings for a more in-depth review. We reviewed all 264 GSA leases DOGE listed as terminated on its Wall of Receipts as of July 7, 2026.

·        For contracts, these agencies were USAID, DOD, and HHS. We selected 10 contracts per agency.[68]

·        For grants, these agencies were USAID and HHS. We selected three to five grants per agency or component, as described below.

From USAID, DOD, and HHS we used random selection within selected subsets of contracts and grants to form nongeneralizable samples of reported savings for additional review.

·        For contracts, to facilitate coordination and communication with agency officials responsible for the administration of the selected contracts, we limited the selection to no more than two components within each agency and no more than three locations within each agency and component.[69] We grouped eligible contracts based on three primary criteria: (1) contracts that were closed and not closed according to FPDS; (2) contracts corresponding to the highest (the largest 10 percent within each agency) and lowest (those with $0) reported savings; and (3) contracts representing the four available pricing types: cost type, fixed price, time and materials/labor hours, and other. We randomly selected contracts to be included in the sample from the groups associated with our three criteria. We used professional judgment to select which groups would provide variation across the criteria. For additional information on the sample characteristics see table 7.

Primary criteria	Criteria options	Breakdown of 11 contracts within Department of Defense	Breakdown of 10 contracts within Department of Health and Human Services	Breakdown of 10 contracts within United States Agency for International Development
FPDS Closed Status	Closed	1	2	3
	Not closed	10	8	7
DOGE- Reported Savings	$0 reported savings	2	2	2
	Top 10 percent of reported savings	9	8	8
FPDS Pricing Type	Cost type	1	1	6
	Fixed price	7	5	1
	Time and materials/labor hours	1	4	2
	Other	2	0	1

Source: GAO analysis of data from Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Wall of Receipts (https://doge.gov/savings) as of January 2026.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

Note: FPDS data do not distinguish between full and partial terminations.

·        For grants, to facilitate coordination and communication with agency officials responsible for the administration of the selected grants, we limited the selection to no more than two components within each agency.[70] We grouped eligible grants based on those corresponding to the highest (the largest 10 percent within each agency) and lowest (those with $0) reported savings. We randomly selected grants to be included in the sample from those in the large and small reported savings groups across agency components. For additional information on the sample characteristics see table 8.

Criteria based on DOGE data	Breakdown of 3 grants within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention	Breakdown of 5 grants within HHS National Institutes of Health	Breakdown of 4 of grants within United States Agency for International Development
$0 reported savings	0	2	1
Top 10 percent of reported savings	3	3	3

Source: GAO analysis of data from Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Wall of Receipts (https://doge.gov/savings) as of January 2026.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

Note: Because the DOGE data did not contain component level information, we also used the Department of Health and Human Service’s Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System data to help determine the agency component.

Because we made a nongeneralizable selection of agencies and components, our findings from the samples cannot be used to make inferences about the agencies and components overall or other agencies and components. However, we determined that the selection of these agencies and components was appropriate for our design and that the selection would generate valid and reliable evidence to support our work. Specifically, our sample drew from the largest reported savings and facilitated our ability to assess DOGE savings estimates and methodology.

We requested documentation from the agencies included in our samples of contracts and grants, and from GSA for the leases. For contracts and leases, we reviewed agency documentation to examine the costs associated with these reported terminations and where DOGE’s reported savings may have been inaccurate. We also interviewed agency officials to understand the contracts and leases that were terminated and the circumstances surrounding those terminations.[71] In addition:

·        For contracts, we reviewed contract file documentation, interviewed agency officials, and obtained written responses to identify any savings.

·        For grants, we requested grant documentation from HHS. HHS submitted the requested grant documentation; however, a technology issue prevented proper transfer of these grants in a timely manner.[72]

·        For leases, we reviewed additional information on leases identified for termination included on the Wall of Receipts from GSA, such as the location, tenant agency, and term of the lease. We examined leases in GSA’s tracker within the scope of this review which included those where GSA sent termination notification letters to the agencies from January 20, 2025, to January 1, 2026.

To assess the extent to which DOGE disclosed any relevant data limitations, we reviewed the Wall of Receipts on a periodic basis throughout our review. We also reviewed our prior work on key practices for transparently reporting government data.[73] We requested to meet with DOGE and asked for responses to written questions. However, it did not respond to our inquiries. Therefore, we were unable to clarify how DOGE estimated savings when the reported savings did not correspond to their stated methodologies or other calculations.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2025 through August 2026 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

For the selected contracts we reviewed, we identified actions taken that may result in cost savings or cost avoidance based on our independent review of contract file documentation and interviews with contracting officials. Deobligating funds previously obligated on a contract may allow those funds to be used for other purposes. If these funds are then used for similar work placed on a different contract, the amount of net cost savings to the government may be reduced. Similarly, this amount may be reduced by settlement costs related to a termination. In addition, future costs can potentially be avoided by actions such as (1) reducing the total contract value; (2) descoping or removing work, unfunded option periods, and individual tasks; and (3) reducing the upper limit of how much can be obligated in the future on orders placed on certain contracts. These actions can reduce or avoid future costs but do not result in immediate savings and are not certain to be realized.

		Actions taken
Contract description and status	DOGE-reported savings	Deobligations	Other actions
IT modernization services for more than 187 Air Force locations worldwide (Base Infrastructure Modernization (BIM)  Status: Not terminated	$4 billion	$0	The agency reduced the total contract value of $12.5 billion by $3.75 billion.
IT support for Defense Health Agency Military Medical Treatment Facilities worldwide Status: Not terminated	$1,764,530,973	$0	With agreement from DOGE, the agency took no action on this contract, which has a total value of $2.4 billion.
Transformation support for highly complex Air Force IT initiatives Status: Not terminated	$832 million	$0	The agency reduced the total contract value of $2.75 billion by $832 million.
IT services for Air Force and Space Force at locations worldwide Status: Not terminated	$700 million	$0	The agency reduced the total agreement value of $5,712,635,494 by $700 million.
Update IT systems in support of Air Force transformation initiatives Status: Not terminated	$62,651,276	$21,612,519 The agency also obligated funding, resulting in a net deobligation of $12,422,628.	The agency descoped work and reduced the total contract value of $116,662,858 by $74,777,767 through several modifications that also added funding. The agency later exercised an option to extend the contract by 6 months and increased the value by obligating $7,275,894.
Professional expertise on IT initiatives for Air Force transformation Status: Terminated (closed)	$32,909,213	$5,354,954 The agency subsequently obligated $354,954, resulting in a net deobligation of $5 million.	The agency descoped work and reduced the contract value of $101,501,716 by $32,554,259.
Cloud-based IT services for the Air Force Status: Not terminated	$29,754,904	$0	The agency descoped tasks valued at $29,754,904, while subsequently adding funding for other tasks.
Financial management modernization at the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency Status: Not terminated	$28,377,949	$0	The agency removed option periods, descoped work, and reduced the total contract value of $43,456,260 by $28,377,949. Contracting officials stated that they later awarded a sole source follow-on contract for $27.4 million to the same contractor to complete the same work.
Cloud-based IT services and cybersecurity for Air Force bases Status: Not terminated	$21,612,519	$0	The agency descoped work and decreased the contract value. This was a continuation of a base contract and had many modifications as part of the transition to new contracts.
Air Force annual subscription for research services Status: Terminated	$0	$0	The agency terminated the contract in March 2025 after it was already fully funded and executed.
Air Force subscriptions to a publication that covers legislative affairs information Status: Terminated (closed)	$0	$35,600 The agency was unable to provide evidence that it recouped the deobligated funds.	The agency terminated the contract for subscriptions and did not exercise future option periods valued at $114,460.

Source: GAO analysis of information from Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Wall of Receipts (https://doge.gov/savings) as of January 2026, the Federal Procurement Data System as of January 2026, Department of Defense (DOD) contract documentation, and written responses from agency officials.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

Notes: Both completely and partially terminated contracts may be subject to settlement costs. For contracts and orders that are not listed in the table as closed or completely terminated, performance may be ongoing and the government may continue to obligate money against them.

In some cases, the deobligation and the reduction in total value amounts are the same, reflecting a single action that both deobligates funding and lowers the total value.

The selected contracts included indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts and orders as well as a purchase order and a blanket purchase agreement that used simplified procedures. Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts may be used when the exact quantities and timing for products or services are not known at the time of award. These contracts must include a stated minimum and maximum quantity. Orders are placed to meet individual requirements. When quantities or tasks are eliminated or reduced, the total value may or may not decrease. Quantities and tasks can subsequently be added, resulting in an increase in the total value. In these cases, savings are not certain to be realized.

Multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts are awarded to multiple contractors, potentially thousands, who can compete for orders under a fair opportunity process. A contractor with a multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract is only guaranteed a minimum quantity, and may never receive an order following this process, or may receive orders up to the stated maximum.

For multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity base contracts, we only reviewed the contract reported on the DOGE Wall of Receipts, and not the orders placed against that contract.

For task orders and delivery orders, we did not review the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity base contract or the other orders placed against it. In the table, we refer to these orders as contracts.

		Actions taken
Contract description and status	DOGE-reported savings	Deobligations	Other actions
Professional support for the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention Status: Terminated (partial)	$18,521,652	$0	The agency descoped tasks and reduced the total contract value of $40,001,231 by $7,658,529.
Professional support to develop a public health reporting registry Status: Not terminated (closed)	$14,684,814	$141,489	The agency closed the contract and reduced the total contract value of $21,374,589 by $141,489 after the period of performance ended.
Support services for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and center-wide offices Status: Terminated (partial)	$13,104,374	$0	The agency descoped tasks and reduced the total contract value of $24,979,841 by $4,295,564.
System updates for Early Notification of Community-Based Epidemics Status: Terminated (partial)	$6,521,737	$0	The agency descoped tasks and reduced the total contract value of $12,875,732 by $2,019,591. The agency subsequently exercised an option period in July 2025.
Professional expertise to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Status: Terminated (partial)	$5,952,610	$0	The agency descoped tasks and subsequently reduced the potential total contract value by $2,216,544 to $22,492,655 as part of exercising an option that also obligated additional funds.
Support to maintain a robust emergency management program Status: Terminated (partial)	$5,910,766	$365,038	The agency descoped tasks by $5,017,032. However, the total contract value was not reduced, it remained at $7,054,001. The agency exercised the first option period in September 2025.
Professional support for the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Status: Terminated (partial)	$5,273,688	$0	The agency descoped tasks but did not reduce the total contract value. A termination settlement is pending. The agency exercised the last option period in September 2025.
Newborn screening lab support Terminated (partial)	$2,945,945	$101,486	The agency removed tasks and reduced the total contract value by $101,486. The last option period was exercised in September 2025.
Professional support for the Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services Status: Terminated (partial)	$0	$0	The agency did not reduce the total contract value of $747,753. The contractor submitted a settlement proposal for $5,024 in termination costs. The period of performance ended in July 2025.
Specialized medical support related to COVID-19 testing access Status: Terminated (partial, closed)	$0	$50,209,483 According to agency officials, Congress rescinded $49,977,100.	The contract was originally valued at $1,142,544,690. It was awarded and funded at $54,406,890 in 2022. The remaining option periods were not exercised, and no additional funds were obligated. The agency partially terminated the contract shortly before it expired in May 2025. The total contract value reduction of $566,842,555 consisted of the remaining value of the unexecuted option periods.

Source: GAO analysis of information from Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Wall of Receipts (https://doge.gov/savings) as of January 2026, the Federal Procurement Data System as of January 2026, Department of Health and Human Services contract documentation, and written responses from agency contracting officials as of April 2026.  |  GAO‑26‑108615

Notes: Both completely and partially terminated contracts may be subject to settlement costs. For contracts and orders that are not listed in the table as closed or completely terminated, performance may be ongoing and the government may continue to obligate money against them.

In some cases, the deobligation and the reduction in total value amounts are the same, reflecting a single action that both deobligates funds and lowers the total value.

The selected contracts include indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts and orders, as well as a purchase order that used simplified procedures. Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts may be used when the exact quantities and timing for products or services are not known at the time of award. These contracts must include a stated minimum and maximum quantity. Orders are placed to meet individual requirements. When quantities or tasks are eliminated or reduced, total value may or may not decrease. Quantities or tasks can subsequently be added, resulting in an increase in the total value. In these cases, savings are not certain to be realized.

For task orders and delivery orders, we did not review the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity base contract or the other orders placed against it. In the table, we refer to these orders as contracts.

GAO Contacts

Jessica Lucas-Judy LucasJudyJ@gao.gov, Michael Hoffman, HoffmanME@gao.gov, David Marroni, MarroniD@gao.gov, Tatiana Winger, WingerT@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Keith Cunningham (Assistant Director), Angie Nichols-Friedman (Assistant Director), Laurel Plume (Assistant Director), Nisha Rai (Assistant Director), Jessica Berkholtz (Analyst-in-Charge), Justine Augeri, Jim Ashley, Rose Brister, Noelle Du Bois, Emily Crofford, Mikayla Ferg, James Holley, Suellen Foth, Catherine Kim, Sheila R. McCoy, Raquel Qualls-Hampton, Andrew Stavisky, Trevor Warner, Alyssa Weir, Crystal Wesco, and Alicia Wilson made key contributions to this report.

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO

Connect with GAO on X, LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact FraudNet:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454

Media Relations

Sarah Kaczmarek, Managing Director, Media@gao.gov

Congressional Relations

David A. Powner, Acting Managing Director, CongRel@gao.gov

General Inquiries

https://www.gao.gov/about/contact-us