The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reports that more federal office buildings in Michigan are closing. According to data posted on the agency’s “Wall of Receipts,” six leases have been terminated for offices across Michigan.
However, the DOGE website lacks information about which government agencies leased the properties, as well as their addresses and other critical details. The listed lease cancellations only include the yearly lease amount and total savings.
When DOGE announced last week that it was closing an office in Okemos, it was identified as a Social Security Administration facility. That information is no longer available on the DOGE website. Instead, the primary agency for all canceled leases is listed as General Services Administration, or there is no agency listed at all.
The six most recent leases cancelled in Michigan are located in the following cities:
- Baraga — A 1,200 square-foot facility. Cancelling the lease will save $14,400.
- Detroit — An 856 square-foot facility. The yearly lease is worth $17,120 and the cancellation will save $72,760 total.
- Grand Rapids — A 2,145 square-foot facility. Cancelling the lease will save $51,742 yearly and $202,657 total.
- Marquette — A 3,122 square-foot facility. $53,343 will be saved in the closure.
- Sault Ste. Marie — An 1,100 square-foot facility. Cancelling the lease will save $34,375 yearly and $85,937 total.
- Traverse City — A 798 square-foot facility. The cut will save $28,638 yearly and $50,117 total.
In total, DOGE claims that closing the facilities will save $480,214.
The lease cancellations come as DOGE continues to cut the budgets of other government agencies, as directed by President Donald Trump. In January, Trump established DOGE through an executive order, stating that the agency will modernize “Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”
DOGE claims to have saved the government $105 billion as of March 2 through “contract, grant, and lease cancellations,” according to the DOGE website. Critics have pointed out that some of the claimed “savings” were not accurately reported. One contract allegedly saved $8 billion but was only worth $8 million.
In other cases, the total value of some contracts has already been fully obligated, implying that the government is required to spend the funds for the goods or services purchased, which it may have already done.
