Deloitte has emerged as the biggest early casualty of the Trump administration’s aggressive drive to curb federal spending on consultants, with over 129 government contracts either cancelled or scaled back — more than twice the number of any other firm, according to a Financial Times analysis of data released by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge).
The Big Four firm is among ten major consultancies ordered to submit detailed cost-saving proposals, outlining how they intend to reduce their fees or identify contracts deemed non-essential. The list also includes Accenture, IBM, and Booz Allen Hamilton.
Collectively, the ten firms are expected to invoice the federal government for $65 billion in services over 2025 and beyond. The administration has demanded each company present savings estimates, with strong justifications for the contracts they deem vital. “Each of these firms would do well to come in and say they have identified 25 to 30 per cent of savings,” said a senior official at the General Services Administration (GSA).
Deloitte has reportedly lost contracts across nearly every federal agency targeted by Doge, including the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. The data suggests these cancellations could save the taxpayer an estimated $372 million — a figure that excludes the termination of a significant IT services contract with the Internal Revenue Service, originally valued at up to $1.9 billion over seven years.
Meanwhile, Guidehouse — a consultancy spun off from PwC in 2018 — has recorded the highest savings from a single contract, with Doge claiming $376 million saved, mostly from a Department of Energy agreement.
The government’s cost-cutting crusade, which Doge claims has already identified $130 billion in savings, has not been without controversy. Critics have questioned the transparency and accuracy of the department’s methodology, with roughly half of its claimed contract cancellations lacking sufficient documentation for independent auditing.
A template presentation sent to the ten firms instructs them to describe and justify their federal work in “layman terms” simple enough for a 15-year-old to understand, and to break down how much of their services are billed hourly versus fixed or performance-based. The GSA is reportedly keen to shift more government work to performance-based contracts but has been hindered by outdated and fragmented procurement systems.
Some consulting executives have expressed frustration at the process, which they claim conflates strategic advisory work with extensive IT implementation projects. “Speaking as a consultant, this is the antithesis of how you are supposed to do this,” said one director. Another described the GSA’s template as resembling something “a high-schooler put together.”
However, others view the exercise as an opportunity to engage with the administration on broader reforms. Accenture CEO Julie Sweet recently commented that the firm sees long-term potential to assist the government in modernisation and efficiency efforts.
Outside the consultancy sector, the administration’s sweeping effort continued throughout March, with an uptick in contract cancellations noted at agencies such as the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
