Muslim World Report

Federal Auditors Alarmed by DOGE’s Rapid Audit Methods

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 19, 2025 10:57 AM | 10 min read | 2006 words

TL;DR: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established by Elon Musk, is under scrutiny for its rapid, technology-driven auditing methods. Critics argue that this approach jeopardizes transparency and accountability in federal governance. Concerns about legal challenges and the need for qualified professionals in auditing are at the forefront of discussions as DOGE navigates criticism and potential reforms.

The Risk of Experimentation: Analyzing the Concerns Surrounding DOGE

The recent establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by Elon Musk, has ignited significant debate regarding the infiltration of corporate innovation into government processes. This initiative, launched during the early weeks of the Trump administration, purports to be a reformist force aimed at rectifying issues of fraud, waste, and abuse within federal systems. However, its rapid, technology-driven approach to auditing has raised alarms among seasoned federal auditors, who contend that this model threatens the integrity of established auditing practices (Kettl, 1993; Dietz, 2006).

Critics of DOGE’s methodologies highlight a troubling departure from established standards of accountability. Key concerns include:

  • Lack of Training: Personnel involved often lack the requisite training and experience necessary for sensitive audits.
  • Speed Over Quality: The insistence on completing audits within mere weeks raises profound concerns regarding the transparency and reliability of findings.

This culture of haste, critics argue, undermines the quality of oversight and promotes mismanagement that could have far-reaching consequences (Maphumulo & Bhengu, 2019).

To illustrate the risks of such rapid innovation in government, we can look at the infamous Healthcare.gov launch in 2013, where a rush to implement a new system led to widespread technical failures and public outcry. Had the project leaders prioritized thorough testing and experienced oversight rather than a swift rollout, they might have avoided the initial chaos that undermined public trust in a critical healthcare initiative.

The implications of DOGE’s operations extend beyond the narrow scope of federal audits; they engage with fundamental tenets of governance, the intersection of technology and public service, and the inherent dangers of prioritizing innovation over established expertise. As Power (2022) elucidates, the dynamics of the contemporary audit society are shifting under the influence of surveillance capitalism, which often prioritizes efficiency over accountability, thereby risking the erosion of public trust in government institutions. This scenario encapsulates a broader struggle against imperialist tendencies, manifesting not only through foreign policy but also within the very fabric of domestic governance.

As DOGE’s operations continue, the prospect of formal legal scrutiny looms large, reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis when major institutions faced unprecedented legal challenges that reshaped entire sectors. If federal auditors and stakeholder groups decide to pursue litigation against DOGE, the landscape for its practices could dramatically shift. Potential outcomes include:

  • Uncovering Violations: Legal challenges may unearth deeper issues, including violations of norms and regulations governing federal auditing practices, similar to how the Enron scandal revealed widespread accounting fraud that led to significant legal reforms.
  • Public Interest Advocacy: Public interest groups could rally for class-action lawsuits, spotlighting instances of mismanagement and mishandling of sensitive information (Boyle, 2007). This movement could echo the activist response to corporate negligence seen in cases like the tobacco industry, where grassroots efforts led to significant legal consequences and changes in industry practices.

If DOGE’s operations come under formal legal scrutiny, the consequences could be monumental. Legal battles could catalyze discussions about the ethical implications of technology’s role in governance and stress the necessity for accountability and responsible practices (Joseph & Johnson, 2013).

  • A successful legal challenge could empower critics, prompting inquiries into not only DOGE’s practices but also the broader trend of corporatization within government functions.
  • Such confrontations could deter other tech entrepreneurs contemplating partnerships with government entities, reinforcing the necessity for ethical oversight in governmental functions.

Historical context underscores this significant moment, as past attempts at privatization in public governance have shown that conditions for effective market competition often do not apply to government functions (Kettl, 1993). For instance, consider the privatization of the British rail system in the 1990s, which was initially heralded as a means to improve efficiency but ultimately led to chaos, increased fares, and decreased service reliability. Initiatives akin to DOGE risk repeating such mistakes, often resulting in inadequate oversight and exacerbating systemic issues without effectively addressing underlying problems (Reardon et al., 2003). Can we afford to relive these lessons, or will history compel us to seek a more transparent and accountable approach?

The Consequences of Inadequate Oversight

The concern over DOGE’s operational methods transcends mere procedural failings; it poses critical questions regarding governance transparency and ethical standards in federal auditing. Critics argue that the lack of experienced professionals involved in the auditing process jeopardizes:

  • Integrity of Audits: The risks associated with normalization of a culture that values speed over thoroughness, reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis, where rushed assessments and inadequate oversight allowed for widespread malfeasance to go unchecked (Smith, 2020).
  • Long-Term Repercussions: Immediate efficiencies that could undermine the role of governmental oversight and public accountability, much like a tree that grows rapidly without proper care; it may appear strong at first but is ultimately susceptible to collapse when faced with a storm (Johnson, 2019).

These issues prompt us to consider: what value do we place on diligence and expertise in a system that prioritizes speed?

What If DOGE Succeeds?

Conversely, should DOGE successfully navigate its challenges and establish itself as a credible auditing entity, the implications could be monumental. A successful implementation of DOGE’s rapid auditing model might:

  • Legitimize Rapid Auditing: Entrench a trend towards privatization and wider adoption of such approaches in federal operations (Andrews & Entwistle, 2010). Just as the Industrial Revolution ushered in mass production, the rise of rapid auditing could herald a new era in government efficiency, though questions about quality and oversight remain.
  • Divert Critical Attention: Shift focus away from ethical considerations and established practices in public sector accountability.

However, this success could come at considerable cost, particularly to marginalized communities. Potential consequences include:

  • Critical Oversights: Risks of significant errors leading to misallocation of resources, akin to a factory outputting defective products due to a rushed process.
  • Exacerbated Disparities: Disproportionate negative impacts on these groups if DOGE’s approach prioritizes speed over quality (Adams, Muir, & Hoque, 2014), suggesting a scenario where the quickest route is not always the best one.

Legitimizing DOGE’s model could set a troubling precedent that encourages similar ventures seeking to privatize government functions, leading to a governance model that prioritizes efficiency over comprehensive public welfare, further entrenching existing societal disparities (Davis & Hayes, 1993). The broader implications of such a shift invite critical scrutiny: Are we willing to trade accountability for speed, and at what price? As we stand at this crossroads, the balance between innovation and accountability becomes increasingly precarious.

The Role of Congressional Intervention

Given the mounting concerns regarding DOGE’s practices, Congressional intervention may emerge as a pivotal factor in shaping its operational framework, much like the way the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 aimed to stabilize the financial system during times of economic volatility. Legislators may choose to scrutinize the department, potentially instituting regulations that enhance oversight and transparency (Black, 2013). This scrutiny might lead to:

  • Stricter Standards: Establishing rigorous vetting of qualifications and methodologies prior to implementation, akin to how the Food and Drug Administration rigorously evaluates new drugs for safety and efficacy (Gillingham et al., 2006).
  • Restoring Traditional Processes: Incorporating community input to reinforce accountability and public trust. As in the case of the Civil Rights Movement, where grassroots participation played a crucial role in shaping legislation, involving community voices can help ensure that policies meet the needs of those they ultimately affect.

In light of these potential actions, one must consider: how can we strike a balance between necessary regulation and the innovative spirit that drives organizations like DOGE?

What If Congress Intervenes?

If Congress acts decisively in response to the challenges posed by DOGE, it could reshape the future of the department’s operations, much like the way the New Deal transformed the American economy during the Great Depression. Legislative measures could focus on:

  • Implementing Clear Guidelines: Reinforcing the hiring of trained professionals in key positions, akin to how the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) strengthened its workforce after Hurricane Katrina to better manage crises.
  • Creating a Regulatory Environment: Establishing structures conducive to ethical governance, similar to the regulations put in place after the 2008 financial crisis that aimed to restore public confidence in the banking system.

Such engagement could lead to a re-evaluation of the roles of established auditing professionals, empowering them to effectively inform technology-driven practices. By harmonizing new technologies with established methods, the government could enhance operational effectiveness while safeguarding the integrity of public trust. Could this be the catalyst for a new era of accountability and transparency in public service?

Strategic Maneuvers for the Future

As the DOGE situation unfolds, stakeholders must revisit their strategic frameworks to address the implications of this initiative effectively. Federal auditors should:

  • Advocate for Reevaluation: Rally collectively to stress the importance of qualified personnel and adherence to established auditing practices (Clement et al., 2003).

Congressional leaders should recognize the critical window for proactive engagement by:

  • Emphasizing Well-Defined Guidelines: Reinforcing the need for trained professionals in key positions.
  • Holding Public Hearings: Providing platforms for experienced auditors to voice concerns directly to the public and stakeholders.

DOGE itself faces a complex challenge in navigating the opposition and skepticism directed toward it. Just as the United States faced significant skepticism regarding the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913—when many feared it would centralize power and threaten economic stability—DOGE must embrace a future-oriented model that prioritizes accountability and transparency over mere speed. Engaging with experienced auditors to forge a framework that integrates technological advancement while respecting traditional auditing principles is paramount. This collaborative approach could enhance DOGE’s credibility and establish a sustainable system that genuinely serves the public good.

In conclusion, the trajectory of DOGE represents a critical juncture in the evolving relationship between technology and governance. The responses from stakeholders—including auditors, Congress, and DOGE itself—will ultimately dictate whether this moment catalyzes meaningful transformation in government efficiency or leads to an erosion of the foundational pillars of accountability and integrity. Much like the historic shifts seen during the Industrial Revolution, where technology redefined industries and governance struggled to keep pace, the stakes are high. The decisions made today will indelibly shape the future of public service in an increasingly digitized landscape.

References

  • Adams, C. A., Muir, S., & Hoque, Z. (2014). Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 5(1), 84-102.
  • Andrews, R., & Entwistle, T. (2010). Does Cross-Sectoral Partnership Deliver? An Empirical Exploration of Public Service Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(3), 421-445.
  • Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ, 347, f167.
  • Boyle, S. J., & Hayes, K. (2007). The Demand for Good Government. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(1), 111-126.
  • Clement, M. B., Rees, L., & Swanson, E. P. (2003). The Influence of Culture and Corporate Governance on the Characteristics That Distinguish Superior Analysts. Journal of Accounting Auditing & Finance, 18(4), 481-506.
  • Davis, M. L., & Hayes, K. (1993). The Demand for Good Government. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(3), 203-215.
  • Dietz, M. (2006). Participatory regulation: The role of government in a public market economy. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 381-388.
  • Gillingham, K., Newell, R. G., & Palmer, K. (2006). Energy Efficiency Policies: A Retrospective Examination. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 295-322.
  • Hoque, Z. (2008). Measuring and reporting public sector outputs/outcomes. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(5), 488-505.
  • Kettl, D. F. (1993). Sharing power: public governance and private markets. Choice Reviews Online, 31(7), 31-1791.
  • Maphumulo, W. T., & Bhengu, B. (2019). Challenges of quality improvement in the healthcare of South Africa post-apartheid: A critical review. Curationis, 42(1), a1901.
  • Power, M. (2022). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press.
  • Reardon, C. L., et al. (2003). The challenges of governance. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 575-586.
← Prev Next →