What can I say Aorus...... you're a freaking moron, you have been brainwashed by the leftist lame stream media, educated far beyond your intelligence with easy answers propaganda, what you say is simply not true.
THIS >>>>>> The nonpartisan and nonpolitical Government Accountability Office has estimated that “the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud” based on data from 2018 to 2022.
Well, look at the moron calling me a morons, how funny is that!!! It is you who has been brainwashed by the maga propaganda machine to never listen to anyone but trump who is nothing but a constant stream of lies... this is how you know you are listening to the wrong side, if they tell you "EVERYONE ELSE IS LYING AND IS THE FAKE NEWS, ONLY _____ IS TELLING YOU THE TRUTH", if this sounds familiar then YOU ARE THE GULLIBLE BRAINWASHED MORON!!!
You don't have to be a gullible moron all your life. It's easy to understand how it happened. When you follow a known con-man, convicted criminal, adjudicated rapist, and well-known pedophile, it was inevitable. You really need to make some big changes...
FACTS, first, Musk claimed he would find 2 trillion dollars very easily, all he had to do is "look in any direction", then he started looking and that "2 trillion dollars" went down to 500 billion, which dropped to 200 billion, and then something like 20 billion, and it's doubtful if he even came close to that! Meanwhile, he shut down critical agencies and fired everyone, only to have to hire them all back, costing millions of additional dollars, The whole thing was a giant cluster fuck!!!
Contrary to its name, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has proven to be anything but efficient. Instead of streamlining operations, it has plowed ahead recklessly, disregarding laws, bypassing safeguards, and creating widespread dysfunction, all while incurring significant costs in the long run. To make matters worse, DOGE has also shrouded its actions behind a vague directive and an utter lack of transparency, effectively shielding itself from much-needed scrutiny. Despite the secrecy under which DOGE is operating, the American people have pressing questions that demand answers.
While both President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have claimed that DOGE operates with “maximum transparency,” the administration has offered little insight into its operations beyond its vague directive to “maximize efficiency.” In fact, to shield the initiative from public scrutiny, Trump strategically rebranded the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) as DOGE and declared it “established in the Executive Office of the President.” Previously, the USDS operated under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and was subject to Title 5 regulations, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, if DOGE is no longer under the OMB and now functions within the Executive Office of the President, it would instead be subject to Title 3 and the Presidential Records Act, exempting it from FOIA disclosure requirements.
DOGE itself has also ignored demands to preserve its records under the Federal Records Act, and agencies have failed to provide meaningful oversight of DOGE’s activities despite the sensitive nature of the data it manages. This lack of transparency and oversight has obstructed public understanding, raised serious concerns about accountability, and intensified fears that DOGE is breaking the law. As the Center for American Progress noted in a prior analysis, DOGE’s actions may be infringing on laws such as the Privacy Act of 1974.
Americans deserve clarity on how DOGE is operating and whether it is violating the law. As journalists, Congress, and litigators seek to uncover DOGE’s secretive activities, this column highlights the key questions necessary to understand the full scope of its actions.
A crucial first step in understanding DOGE’s activities is determining the chain of custody for the data—specifically, identifying the full extent of DOGE’s access to federal records. This means determining which databases and systems DOGE personnel have been able to access, who accessed them, for what purpose, and how the data were used. Currently, there are limited accounts, and it is possible that other agencies have been involved, yet their participation has not yet come to light.
The inner workings of DOGE remain largely unknown, with little public information on its hires, legal authority, and oversight of personnel handling sensitive federal data. While President Trump positioned Elon Musk as its leader, the government has represented in court filings that Musk is neither the DOGE service administrator—a role held by Amy Gleason—nor an official DOGE employee. The administration has only acknowledged him as a “special government employee” serving as a senior adviser to President Trump within the executive office without formal decision-making authority. Yet in his address to the nation, the president continued to claim DOGE “is headed by Elon Musk.” Adding to the confusion, some DOGE personnel have been listed as employees in agency directories, despite DOGE being housed within the Executive Office of the President.
One of the most serious concerns is whether DOGE shared government data with private companies. This concern has intensified following reports that DOGE received the U.S. Department of Labor’s approval to use software capable of transferring large amounts of data out of its systems. With DOGE personnel potentially maintaining ties to Musk-affiliated businesses, it is essential to determine whether federal data were improperly transferred or monetized.
Reports indicate that DOGE has begun feeding sensitive data from the U.S. Department of Education into AI software, raising concerns about privacy, national security, and regulatory compliance. It is crucial to determine which AI tools DOGE is using and whether they are properly certified by the U.S. government.
There is growing concern that DOGE’s actions have not only gone unchecked but have been actively shielded from oversight. By establishing DOGE within the Executive Office of the President and subjecting it to the Presidential Records Act, the administration has ensured its records are exempt from public records requests and will remain sealed until 2034. This deliberate move begs the question of whether there have been other instances of DOGE being shielded from scrutiny.
The sheer number of unanswered questions about DOGE makes one thing clear: The Trump administration’s claims of transparency do not match how DOGE actually operates. The administration insists DOGE operates openly, yet its structure, data access, and decision-making remain obscured. This contradiction is exactly why a thorough investigation is necessary. Without proper scrutiny, DOGE risks setting a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power and misuse of federal data. We cannot rely on the administration’s assurances; accountability is the only way to get the truth.
