A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has revealed that the Trump administration spent approximately $7 billion paying federal staff not to work as it pursued buyout initiatives under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The findings have triggered renewed scrutiny from lawmakers across the political spectrum regarding the fiscal efficiency of the administration’s workforce reduction strategies.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative commentators and Republican officials have framed the expenditure as a necessary transitional cost in a broader effort to reduce the long-term size of the federal government.
Supporters of the administration argue that the upfront costs of buyouts and administrative leave are an investment in reducing the federal workforce permanently.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and progressive organizations have characterized the spending as a significant misallocation of taxpayer funds.
Critics argue that paying billions to keep employees on the payroll without active duties contradicts the stated goal of reducing government waste.
Some legislators have called for a comprehensive review of the DOGE program’s overall financial impact, suggesting that the administration failed to achieve net savings through its initial buyout phases.
What the Numbers Show
The GAO report estimates that $6.7 billion was specifically allocated to administrative leave costs associated with DOGE’s push for employee buyouts.
This figure represents the direct cost of retaining staff during the transition period while buyout offers were processed.
The report does not currently provide a finalized net savings figure, as the long-term impact of the workforce reductions is still being calculated by federal agencies.
The Bottom Line
The release of the GAO report marks a pivotal moment in the legislative oversight of the DOGE initiative.
Lawmakers are expected to request further documentation to determine whether the $7 billion expenditure resulted in net savings or net costs over the fiscal year.
The findings will likely influence upcoming congressional debates on federal hiring freezes and future workforce reduction strategies.