When you see the answer you might question the honesty of the cost-savings argument here.
I'd consider even a 3% reduction in spend a massive success. The percentage of money being wasted is much higher, somewhere between 30% and 70% (estimates vary.)
If you've ever worked for a government contractor you've seen the immense waste/scam firsthand.
Any cut of 30% or above involves cutting entitlement spending (social security, medicare, medicaid).
So obviously it's not a matter of what percent savings comes from closing USAID specifically, but in what total savings the posture behind that is going to create over the next 4 years.
Is your position that if someone can't say the exact percent, that's the end of the argument and the US government should continue its unbounded deficit spending?
But I seriously doubt that's the case. What's more likely is that it is perfectly possible to bring spending under control, and that the people who are complaining are doing so because they've had their lips taken off the teat.
1. Raise taxes to pre-2017 TCJA levels and eliminate deficit spending. Pay down the debt. A much, much bigger chunk of our spending is debt interest (17%) than anything DOGE is targeting.
2. More aggressive Medicare/Medicaid service and drug price negotiation. This is 39% of the budget, and even a few percent here would have a bigger impact than anything DOGE is disrupting.
DOGE is a performative gimmick. It's hugely disruptive, mostly just to "own the libs."
The biggest and easiest lever the GOP has to bring spending under control is to let the 10-year TCJA tax rates expire without renewal. Do you think they will do that?