DOGE details its cuts at HUD, VA, CFPB

The Department of Government Efficiency has slashed housing-related vendor contracts for efforts including fraud risk management, diversity initiatives and a bevy of lending support.

President Trump’s budget-cutting task force has slashed over 100 contracts at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, according to the DOGE Wall of Receipts updated March 5. Millions of dollars in mortgage-related contracts have also been slashed at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

HUD Secretary Scott Turner and the Trump administration have championed the cuts as efforts to “eliminate waste, fraud and abuse” although the efforts have raised concerns from watchdogs and former agency officials. The government’s housing overseers have disclosed few details about the budget and staff reductions, which opponents suggested could adversely affect borrowers and lenders.

The swift action has also prompted questions from sitting agency leaders. John Bell III, executive director of the Loan Guaranty Service at the Department of Veterans Affairs, could not immediately describe to lawmakers in a hearing Tuesday what DOGE’s impact was on the VA’s mortgage services. The Wall of Receipts shows four contract terminations for VA mortgage operations, referred to as LGY, totalling $59 million.

HUD last month touted $260 million in savings, and $1.9 billion in identified “misplaced” funds, some of which were revealed to be master subservicing lines that act as a backstop private market operators. Regarding the savings, DOGE itself discloses different sums. 

The Wall of Receipts shows 107 terminated HUD vendor contracts totalling $305,879,227, and over a combined $130 million identified as savings, according to a National Mortgage News review of the data.

Among HUD’s largest contract terminations, a $41.7 million agreement with Deloitte for “Ginnie Mae Optimization and Transformation” was canceled, with DOGE citing $9.6 million in savings. The receipts show four affected Deloitte contracts with HUD, totaling $54 million.

Receipts link to filings with the Federal Procurement Data System, which according its website requires contracts of $10,000 or greater to be recorded. Each filing describes the dates of contracts; company information; the name of the person, typically a government employee, who approved the action; and a reason for termination. 

While contract terminations for other agencies are described as exercising an option, many HUD entries are noted as “terminate for convenience (complete or partial)”. Some of the linked receipts from the government’s FPDS also don’t line up clearly with DOGE’s figures. Task force leader Elon Musk previously acknowledged flaws in DOGE’s reporting, and noted it has corrected past errors. 

While the numbers may be imprecise, the cuts are real. A representative at Rividium, listed as providing “union contract negotiation and labor consultation services,” said this week HUD canceled a previously awarded contract because of a lack of funding. 

Neither vendors contacted by National Mortgage News nor representatives from HUD and the VA returned requests for comment this week.

Mortgage players are also searching for answers. The Mortgage Bankers Association in a statement Wednesday said it continues to seek clarity on federal staffing and operations decisions. 

“We have been communicating with senior staff the importance of having appropriate staffing levels in place to ensure the continuity of programs that serve homeowners and renters,” the statement said. 

HUD cuts

Notable cuts aside from Deloitte’s $54 million include $2.6 million from a change order request to a $2.9 million contract with the Audient Group for “OCRO Fraud Risk Management.” The acronym appears to refer to HUD’s Office of the Chief Risk Officer. 

Many of the contracts refer to various bureaucratic functions, while some six-figure vendor agreements specify particular program oversight, like an evaluation of HUD’s emergency housing voucher program. DOGE says it wiped another $13.5 million worth of combined contracts for vendors working on HUD’s Green and Resilient Retrofit Program. 

Dozens of axed HUD contracts also involve companies identified in FPDS records as small business, women-owned, minority-owned or veteran-owned. Aligning with the Trump administration’s stance, Turner has publicly stated that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are no longer a priority. Six terminated HUD contracts worth a combined $7.3 million are identified as DEI-related. 

Other public information

The Wall of Receipts displays over 300 contract terminations with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. At least four of those contracts are mortgage industry-related, including an alleged $370,000 saved from a $1 million contract with Black Knight for mortgage data. 

DOGE also lists lease terminations, and claims it saved $5.6 million from ending leases for Rural Housing Service and HUD offices which cost $4 million annually. Those offices span the East Coast and Puerto Rico, with 160,000 combined square footage for RHS offices. 

Two HUD offices, in Burlington, Vermont and San Juan, Puerto Rico cost the government $225,581 annually, according to DOGE. A report from Bloomberg suggests HUD plans further sales of its field offices. Bipartisan lawmakers this week sent a letter to Turner, requesting the department keep a field office in every state. 

“Closing these field offices could make it harder to process mortgage insurance for single-family homes, affordable apartment buildings, hospitals, and nursing facilities,” a statement from Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.’s office said. 

While DOGE claims these cuts are necessary to curb wasteful spending, critics argue they could disrupt essential housing services. With conflicting figures, unanswered questions, and growing scrutiny from lawmakers, the full impact of these budget slashes remains uncertain. The Trump administration last week floated a plan to sell hundreds of government buildings, including HUD’s headquarters, only to quickly rescind the proposal—raising further questions about the long-term vision for federal housing oversight.