September 16, 2026
The Department of Homeland Security says it generated more than $10 billion in savings by terminating hundreds of contracts, but Chris Currie, Director of Emergency Management and National Preparedness Issues at the Government Accountability Office, says the actual savings are far more complicated.
During an interview on Fed Gov Today, Currie explains that DHS reviews about 17,000 contracts as part of the government-wide effort to examine federal spending. The department ultimately decides to terminate or partially terminate 438 contracts for convenience.
DHS says those actions save approximately $10.7 billion. Currie says that figure does not represent actual savings because it assumes money that could potentially have been spent over the full life of those contracts is immediately saved when they are terminated.
“That’s not really how terminating contracts works,” Currie says.
GAO finds DHS actually deobligates a net total of about $92 million from the terminated contracts. Currie says that money could represent real savings, provided it is not later spent on similar work through other contracts.
Currie compares the situation to canceling a gym membership. Ending a membership does not mean someone instantly saves everything they might have spent on it over the next decade. Federal contracts can similarly span years, and the total potential value of a contract does not necessarily represent money the government would ultimately spend.
The issue becomes even more complicated when agencies still need the services provided through terminated contracts.
Currie says much of DHS’s claimed savings comes from 30 information technology contracts. However, those IT services shift to other existing contracts. DHS obligates more than $1.7 billion in fiscal 2025 through existing contracts to meet some of those requirements.
“It sounds good to say you cut the contracts and saved the money,” Currie says, “but the problem is you didn’t actually save the money.”
Currie says determining the exact amount of future savings is difficult because it requires predicting what the government would have spent if the contracts remained in place. Looking backward years from now could provide a clearer picture, but calculating those savings prospectively involves numerous variables.
For GAO, Currie says evaluating savings claims comes down to data and analysis. Investigators examine factors including the type and duration of a contract, the services it provides, how much money has already been spent and whether other contracts can provide the same services.
DHS is within its authority to review and terminate contracts, Currie emphasizes. He also acknowledges that the effort produces some savings and efficiencies. The central issue is how those results are characterized.
“It’s correct to say they terminated or partially terminated 438 contracts,” Currie says. What is not accurate, he adds, is treating those terminations as an immediate $10.7 billion in savings.
The contract review is also only the beginning of GAO’s examination. Currie says GAO plans additional reports examining DHS grant terminations and workforce cuts, providing a broader look at the results of the department’s spending and personnel reviews.