DOGE Is Not Cutting Government Spending

Summary

The vlogbrothers' video explores the misconception that the current administration is cutting government spending via the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Contrary to popular belief, federal spending has increased over previous years despite staff layoffs and cuts in areas like foreign aid and science research. These cuts, although politically highlighted, are too small to significantly impact the budget. Major spending continues in areas like Social Security, Medicare, and defense. Thus, real austerity isn't in play, as cutting minor spending isn't enough to reduce the deficit, which continues to grow due to lower tax revenue and increased spending on significant sectors.

Highlights

• Federal government spending has actually increased in 2025 compared to prior years. 📆
• The misconception that firing federal employees and cutting minor aid reduces deficit is debunked. ❌
• Key spending areas: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and debt interest. 🔍
• Small cuts in foreign aid and science sound austere but have little financial impact. 🧮
• To cut deficit, both major spending cuts and tax increases are needed; not minor policy changes. ⛏️

Key Takeaways

• DOGE isn't reducing overall federal spending contrary to popular beliefs. 🤔
• Minor budget cuts like foreign aid and science don't significantly impact overall federal expenses. 💸
• Spending highlights show major allocations in Social Security, Medicare, and defense at 75% of the budget. 📈
• Deficit grows as tax revenue decreases and spending increases in key sectors. 📉
• Arguing over minor spending is more a political debate than economic logic. 🗣️

Overview

In a new video by the vlogbrothers, Hank addresses a common misunderstanding regarding federal spending under the Trump administration's purported Department of Government Efficiency, known colloquially as DOGE. Despite visible cuts and political theatre suggesting a decrease in government size and spending, financial figures tell a different story: the federal spending has, in fact, increased. The administration's maneuvers, including significant employee layoffs and cuts to foreign aid, are more smoke than fire in the grand scheme of the federal budget.

To comprehend the federal spending landscape, one must look beyond the layoffs and minor budget trims. A staggering portion—75%—of federal spending is dedicated to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on debt. These categories dwarf cuts in foreign aid and science, which, although shrunk, do not substantially lower overall expenses. Instead, these cuts serve as political points rather than fiscal solutions, highlighted for their immediate impact on specific communities despite their negligible budgetary impact.

Ultimately, Hank points out that true austerity to address growing deficits and national debt involves deeper, potentially unpopular actions: significant cuts to major areas of spending and an increase in taxes. Current strategies offer political soundbites rather than effective economic solutions. In essence, while the optics suggest spending cuts through DOGE, the reality is a rise in spending and a need for more comprehensive fiscal strategies to truly tackle the federal budget deficit.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction and Government Spending Misconceptions The chapter 'Introduction and Government Spending Misconceptions' discusses the misconception that the Trump administration is reducing the size of the federal government. Contrary to popular belief, federal spending has increased in the first three months of the administration, with the budget continuously growing. The narrative points out that despite cuts to foreign aid and science research, and layoffs of federal workers, the expenditures of the federal government are on an upward trend, resulting in a larger federal deficit.
• 00:30 - 01:00: Impact of Federal Employee Layoffs and Foreign Aid Cuts The chapter delves into the current economic situation where significant layoffs and budget cuts are occurring at the federal level in the United States. It addresses differing opinions on whether these cuts are beneficial or detrimental. On one hand, some argue that these measures are necessary to reduce the deficit, while on the other, there are concerns about the negative impact on employment and essential services like foreign aid and science funding. The chapter underscores the importance of understanding the federal spending mechanism to grasp the implications of these budgetary decisions.
• 01:00 - 02:00: US Government Spending Breakdown The chapter discusses the breakdown of US federal government spending. It highlights that federal employees make up only 5% of the spending, implying that even substantial layoffs would result in minimal budget reductions. The chapter also notes that foreign aid and USID collectively account for a tiny fraction of tax dollar allocations. Programs like George W. Bush's PEPFAR, which have positively impacted millions of lives, such as funding for the Global Fund to combat HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, are also mentioned to emphasize their small budgetary impact relative to their benefits.
• 02:00 - 03:00: Minor Increases in Big Ticket Items and Tax Collection Issues The chapter discusses the allocation of the US federal budget, highlighting that cuts proposed in certain areas comprise only about 0.5% of the total budget. Despite their minimal impact on overall spending, these cuts attract political attention due to their divisive nature. The chapter further outlines the major areas of federal expenditure: 21% goes to Social Security, 15% to Medicare, 13% each to national defense, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt.
• 03:00 - 04:00: Political Choices vs. Real Austerity The chapter 'Political Choices vs. Real Austerity' highlights the complexities of federal spending, stressing that while certain big-ticket items such as defense are seeing minor increases, the overall spending is rising compared to the previous year. It underscores how benefits for veterans, unemployment, and retirement account for a substantial part of spending. The narrative suggests that despite these increases, areas like scientific research and foreign aid are facing budget cuts. This appears to demonstrate the ongoing challenge of prioritizing where funds should be allocated while managing austerity measures.
• 04:00 - 04:30: Conclusion on Government Spending Cuts The chapter discusses the impact of government spending cuts, emphasizing that while the cuts are significant in terms of lives saved and research advancement, they are not costly. The government's reduced tax collection is contributing to a rising budget deficit and federal debt. Despite discussions on reducing the overall federal budget, significant cuts have not yet been made. The focus remains on small, politically divisive spending categories, which are insufficient for substantial budget reductions.

DOGE Is Not Cutting Government Spending Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 good morning Hank It's Tuesday So I think one of the broadest misconceptions about the US government at the moment is that the Trump administration is cutting the size of the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency or Doge In fact in each of the first three months of the Trump administration despite mass layoffs of federal workers and mass cuts to foreign aid and science research the federal government has spent more in 2025 than it did in 2024 or 2023 Also the margin is going up not down In short the federal government is getting bigger and more expensive and the federal deficit
• 00:30 - 01:00 is also increasing So if you're arguing that Doge is good because they're cutting the deficit in spending or you're arguing that Doge is bad because they're cutting the deficit and spending in both cases I just disagree with your presupposition And yet at the same time it's true that tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs and there have been severe cuts to foreign aid and science spending So what's going on here so first it's important to understand how the federal government actually spends its money So yes tens of thousands of employees of the federal government have been laid off in the last few months but all federal
• 01:00 - 01:30 employees combined only account for about 5% of US federal government spending So even losing 10% of them which is far more than have been fired thus far would mean only cutting the budget by about 0.5% The same is true for cuts to things like foreign aid and US ID Altogether that only accounts for about 1/ half of 1 cent of our tax dollar So like George W Bush's program pepar that has saved tens of millions of lives All the money for the global fund that fights HIV malaria and tuberculosis All of USAD etc
• 01:30 - 02:00 All of that is only about 0.5% of the US federal budget Cuts to it do not meaningfully matter to overall federal spending but they are very politically divisive which means they get a lot of attention which makes it look like they're significant cuts So US federal spending looks like this We spend about 21% of all federal money on Social Security our retirement plan for seniors Another 15% goes to Medicare our national program to provide health care for seniors 13% goes to national defense 13% goes to Medicaid and 13% goes to interest on the debt which will be going
• 02:00 - 02:30 up again because we are spending more money and also taking less in So right there that's 75% of federal spending Benefits for veterans are another 6% unemployment benefits retirement benefits for federal workers nutrition support add up to about 11% US Aid and much more fall into that 3% of other And so even very minor increases in spending for big ticket items like defense mean that the US is spending more in 2025 than we were in 2024 Despite hollowing out scientific research and foreign aid and other minor spending categories the
• 02:30 - 03:00 things we're cutting just aren't very significant I mean they're very significant in the sense that they've saved tens of millions of lives and fueled research that saved tens of millions more but I I mean they're not like expensive Also we're collecting fewer taxes which is another reason why the budget deficit and federal debt are increasing faster than they were last year Now there may eventually come a time when there's a cut to the overall federal budget but we haven't seen that yet And frankly we're unlikely to see it as long as everybody is focused on these tiny tiny categories of spending Like you're just not going to get there by firing federal employees or cancelling politically divisive small projects like
• 03:00 - 03:30 heating support for low-income families or whatever because they're just isn't enough money in them Instead we are cutting things to make it look and sound like we are cutting things This isn't like serious austerity being implemented by Doge to bring down the debt or deficit or whatever This is a political choice made to enact a political worldview And you can agree or disagree with that political worldview Just don't labor under the delusion that it makes the federal government less expensive If you actually wanted to cut the deficit you would have to implement real
• 03:30 - 04:00 austerity measures which would probably mean both decreasing spending and increasing taxes That's what countries do when they're in an actual austerity mode They cut spending on big ticket items like national defense and benefits for seniors And they also raise taxes So to be clear fighting about whether to cut foreign aid is a political argument not an economic one It is quite literally like spending $10,000 a month with your spouse on rent and then having an argument with your spouse over whether you can afford one $50 dinner
• 04:00 - 04:30 per month Like the problem is not the dinner So I just think it's important to understand that cutting foreign aid and science grants has not led to a reduction in overall government spending In fact overall government spending is going up And indeed cutting foreign aid and science grants cannot lead to a meaningful reduction in government spending because it's just too small a percentage of government spending Hank I will see you on