Finding Waste Without Cutting Blindly

Government efficiency is more than a slogan

The federal government operates programs that overlap in purpose, span multiple agencies, or have grown without consistent measurement. Some overlap is necessary: disaster response, public health and national defense often require coordinated roles. The problem begins when responsibility is unclear, systems cannot exchange useful information, or programs repeat work without improving outcomes.

In May 2026, the Government Accountability Office published its 16th annual report on opportunities to reduce duplication, overlap and fragmentation. It identified 97 new recommendations and matters for congressional consideration and listed 610 remaining open items. GAO estimated that addressing outstanding opportunities could yield an additional $100 billion or more in benefits across various time horizons and methods.

Why chasing one big number fails

Financial-benefit estimates may be derived from different baselines, years and assumptions. Adding them into a campaign slogan does not create an appropriations bill or guarantee that money is recoverable. The figure is evidence that careful oversight matters, not proof that a single White House directive could erase the deficit.

There is also a service tradeoff. Consolidating two systems might reduce contracts yet increase delays if migration planning is poor. Cutting redundant paperwork is different from removing a service people depend on. A responsible review measures effects on both dollars and public outcomes.

A practical accountability process

1. Inventory: list programs, contracts, vendors, audiences, legal duties and significant dependencies.
2. Map overlap: identify where multiple organizations solve the same problem, and where collaboration is actually required.
3. Prioritize evidence: start with GAO recommendations, inspector-general findings and performance data.
4. Assign ownership: one accountable lead for each corrective action, with a published schedule.
5. Measure results: track realized savings, implementation cost, service quality and any negative effects.
6. Verify independently: involve oversight bodies rather than letting agencies certify their own success.

A dashboard worth maintaining

Imagine a public federal scorecard showing an item’s recommendation number, responsible agency, current status, expected completion date, original source, dollars realized and the independent evidence supporting closure. “In progress” should not be mistaken for success, and “completed” should require proof.

Such a system would be more persuasive than a constantly updating counter. A counter tells the public that something moved. An accountable scorecard tells the public what changed, why it mattered and whether the result survived independent scrutiny.