Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is demanding documentation from federal agencies to support their claims of saving billions in taxpayer dollars. In a letter sent Tuesday to Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Charles Ezell, Schumer accused the agency and the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, of refusing to share critical records about canceled government contracts.
Schumer’s request comes as DOGE, an agency effectively led by tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, claims to have saved the federal government over $30 billion by canceling what it calls wasteful or unnecessary contracts.
On its public-facing website, DOGE has posted what it refers to as a "Wall of Receipts," listing nearly 8,500 contracts that the agency says it has terminated as part of an aggressive cost-cutting effort initiated by the Trump administration.
However, Schumer says that many of the savings DOGE claims cannot be verified due to a lack of transparency from both DOGE and OPM. In particular, he raised questions about a claim that DOGE saved more than $318 million by canceling a contract related to human resources services through OPM.
“The lack of cooperation from both agencies is troubling,” Schumer wrote in the letter. “The public has a right to access documents concerning DOGE’s reported savings. Such documents must be readily available to ensure these claimed savings are real, legitimate and truly beneficial to taxpayers.”
The contract in question allegedly involved a request for bids to provide human resources services to federal agencies. However, no documentation of the solicitation appears to exist in federal contracting databases. Schumer noted that OPM has not provided any proof that such a proposal was formally issued or that its cancellation saved any money.
“By failing to provide clear documentation and denying access to records surrounding this solicitation, OPM has made it impossible to determine whether the cancellation of this proposal resulted in the savings DOGE has claimed,” Schumer continued. “The public is left in the dark as to whether these savings are based on real, verifiable data.”
DOGE, created under the Trump administration to identify and eliminate inefficiencies in government spending, has been operating under the leadership of Elon Musk, who serves as a senior adviser to the president. The agency has gained attention for its aggressive approach to contract reviews, using technology and private-sector methods to evaluate the necessity of thousands of federal contracts.
Critics of the agency, however, say its methods lack transparency and accountability. While DOGE has promoted its savings through online dashboards and press statements, detailed documentation supporting those figures has not been made widely available.
“This lack of transparency only raises further questions about the accuracy of DOGE’s reported savings and the effectiveness of its cost-saving measures,” Schumer added in his letter.
Democrats and other critics have expressed concern that the agency’s sweeping cancellations could have unintended consequences, particularly when they involve contracts related to essential government services such as human resources, public health, or disaster response.
Some argue that cuts made too quickly or without proper evaluation could end up costing more in the long run by disrupting services or requiring emergency procurement at higher costs.
President Trump has repeatedly praised DOGE for its efforts to slash government spending, describing the agency as a model for how technology and private-sector innovation can be applied to public service. In public remarks, Trump has pointed to DOGE’s reported savings as proof that the federal government has long been plagued by waste and inefficiency.
“Elon and the team at DOGE are doing an incredible job,” Trump said at a recent rally. “They’ve already saved us tens of billions of dollars, and they’re just getting started. We are finally putting the American taxpayer first.”
Despite the praise, there are growing questions about how DOGE determines which contracts to cancel and how it calculates its savings. For instance, in the case of the $318 million claim, Schumer pointed out that there is no available information on whether the project was ever formally solicited, bid on, or budgeted.
“Without a record of the contract proposal, there’s no way to know if this was a real cancellation or just an idea that never went forward,” said a Senate Democratic aide familiar with the matter. “It’s misleading to say you saved money on something that may never have existed.”
OPM, the agency named in the disputed contract, has not commented publicly on the letter or the details of the solicitation. A spokesperson for the agency said only that OPM "continues to work with its partners across the government to improve efficiency and service delivery."
Meanwhile, watchdog groups and independent analysts have echoed Schumer’s concerns, warning that the administration’s focus on cutting costs must be balanced with transparency and oversight.
“The public deserves to know how these savings are calculated and whether they’re coming at the expense of critical services,” said Dana Bell, executive director of the nonprofit organization Government Accountability Now. “We’re not seeing the documentation that would normally accompany changes of this scale.”
Bell said her organization has filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests seeking more details about the contracts listed on DOGE’s website. So far, she says the responses have been limited or heavily redacted.
In recent months, DOGE’s work has been showcased by the administration as part of a larger effort to prove that private-sector leaders can bring dramatic improvements to government operations.
The agency has made headlines not just for its savings claims but also for its unconventional style, including a web portal modeled after social media platforms and online retail dashboards.
But as the agency’s profile grows, so does the scrutiny. Lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns about how contract reviews are being conducted, who is making the decisions, and whether appropriate legal and procedural standards are being followed.
Even some Republicans have expressed cautious interest in learning more about DOGE’s internal operations. While many support the idea of reducing government waste, they say the process must be credible and defensible.
“We all want to save taxpayer dollars, but we need to make sure it’s done the right way,” said Senator Alan Myers, a Republican from Indiana. “If there’s a claim of $30 billion in savings, we should be able to see how those numbers add up.”
The lack of verifiable documentation has also fueled speculation about Musk’s role in DOGE. While his leadership has energized some parts of the administration, others have questioned whether he has too much influence over decisions that affect the daily operations of government agencies.
“Elon Musk is a brilliant innovator, no doubt,” said Dr. Helena Cross, a professor of public administration at Georgetown University. “But governing is not the same as building a startup. You can’t cancel federal contracts with a swipe and a slogan. There are rules, laws, and people who depend on these services.”
Cross said the administration would be wise to publish more data and open DOGE’s work to external review, including audits by the Government Accountability Office or Congressional committees.
For now, Schumer’s letter has put new pressure on OPM and DOGE to explain their savings calculations and release documents that validate their claims. If the agencies fail to respond or continue to withhold information, Democratic lawmakers may push for a formal investigation or legislative hearings.
“We are not going to let billions of dollars in claimed savings go unchecked,” Schumer said in a follow-up statement. “The American people deserve the truth.”
It remains to be seen whether the administration will release the requested information. For now, the debate over DOGE’s practices is likely to continue, with transparency and oversight emerging as central themes in the discussion.
As more lawmakers and members of the public demand answers, pressure is building for the Trump administration to show that its cost-cutting efforts are based on solid evidence—not just impressive headlines.
