The newly established Department of Government Efficiency is already sparking media bias and stark divides in news coverage.

News sources on the left have reflected skepticism toward DOGE and what it can feasibly accomplish. Sources on the right have reflected optimism around the group’s priorities. Optimism has been mostly absent from coverage on the left, and skepticism has been missing in coverage from the right.

The group, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, is tasked with recommending major government cuts and reforms. The group has met with congressional leaders in D.C. and is already highlighting estimates of purported wastefulness: on Dec. 3, DOGE highlighted a Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) report stating unauthorized immigration costs U.S. taxpayers $150.7 billion every year. 

In 2023 alone, illegal immigration cost taxpayers $150.7 billion. To put this in context with other costs (adjusted for inflation):
-World War I: $334 billion
-Apollo Space Program: $257 billion
-Manhattan Project: $30 billion
-Panama Canal: $15.2 billion
-Hoover Dam: $1…

— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) December 3, 2024

On the Left 

Some left-rated sources expressed pessimism about the group’s potential for success and concern about overaggressive cuts.

A CNN (Lean Left bias) analysis said there’s a “rude awakening in store for the DOGE bros” as they seek major cuts. “Roughly 60% of the federal government’s budget comprises what’s known as mandatory spending — primarily Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” the analysis noted. “It would be political suicide to dramatically cut funding for those safety-net programs, which is why there is no appetite in Congress to do so.”

NPR (Lean Left bias) used words like “hazy” and “significant hurdles” when describing the group’s plans, and used words like “fears” and “aggressive” to describe reactions to DOGE’s plans.

AP (Left bias) drew connections between Trump’s plans for DOGE and proposals outlined in Project 2025.

The New York Daily News (Left bias) implied that Musk and Ramaswamy might not work well together by reporting on Ramaswamy’s 2023 remark that Musk would “jump like a circus monkey when Xi Jinping calls in the hour of need.”

On the Right

On the left, the immigration cost estimate wasn’t mentioned. Meanwhile, right-rated outlets rarely noted the mandatory spending obstacles, instead featuring the immigration cost estimate and framing it as an accurate audit of excessive government spending.

Fox Business (Lean Right bias) reported the FAIRUS estimate as fact, saying DOGE “took to X on Monday to highlight the price tag of illegal immigration compared to the cost of World War I and an array of major American projects.”

It devoted much of its article to DOGE’s juxtaposition of the estimated unauthorized immigration costs to major government spending efforts of the past. DOGE’s X post noted the following price tags, all adjusted for inflation:

• World War I: estimated modernday taxpayer cost of $334 billion
• Apollo Space Program: $257B
• Manhattan Project: $30B
• Panama Canal: $15.2B
• Hoover Dam: $1B

Other sources on the right framed DOGE’s efforts as welcome. 

The Washington Examiner (Lean Right bias) praised the group as Trump’s “effort to drain the swamp.”

The New York Post (Lean Right bias) made a point to highlight unexpected praise of DOGE from voices like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria.

Fox Business also highlighted optimism from Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) about DOGE’s potential for success.

Breaking Down the Immigration Cost Estimate

The estimate of unauthorized immigration costs comes from a 2023 report published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which advocates for reducing “overall immigration to a more normal level.”

Here’s how Fox News (Right bias) described the report’s key takeaways at the time:

The study, "The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers 2023" by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) concludes that American taxpayers pay overall around $182 billion annually for services and benefits to illegal immigrants. However, those costs are offset by around $31 billion in taxes collected from what they estimate are 15.5 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Those costs represent a 30% increase since 2017, when FAIR -- which advocates for stricter border security and lower levels of immigration overall -- put the annual net cost at $116 billion a year.

The $182 billion in estimated costs is broken down as follows:

• Federal Education — $6.6 Billion
• Total Federal Medical Expenditures — $23.1 Billion
• Total Federal Justice Enforcement Expenditures — $25.1 Billion
• Total Federal Welfare Programs — $11.6 Billion
• State Educational Expenditures — $73.3 Billion
• State Medical Expenditures — $18.6 Billion
• State Administration of Justice Expenditures — $21.8 Billion
• State Welfare Expenditures — $2 Billion

The study also acknowledges several potential limitations with data collection:

“While preparing this study, we often had to grapple with a paucity of easily accessible official data. Many state and federal entities do not publish detailed data that they collect, making it difficult to reliably separate illegal aliens from citizens or lawful immigrants in many of the fields covered in this report. 

Other studies, which weren’t mentioned in right-rated coverage, focus on the money unauthorized immigrants contribute to the economy. According to the American Community Survey (ACS) unauthorized immigrants “paid $59.4 billion in federal and $13.6 billion in state and local taxes in 2022.”

Dismissing or ignoring estimates like FAIR’s is rarely the right route for journalists to take, as readers are robbed of the chance to see the numbers in proper context. On the other hand, treating the estimates as more than what they are – educated guesses with limitations – can mislead readers.

Remember to actively seek out multiple perspectives and opinions on news stories, especially when they involve highly polarized issues and massive financial estimates.

Henry A. Brechter is the editor-in-chief of AllSides. He has a Center bias.

Reviewed and edited by News Editor Evan Wagner (Lean Left) and Director of Marketing and Bias Ratings Julie Mastrine (Lean Right).