Oddly, however, DOGE’s efforts at transparency have only sown greater confusion about the agency and its activities. Musk and the General Services Administration (GSA) did not respond to a request for comment regarding Musk’s involvement and some of the claims on DOGE’s website.
Consider the role of Musk himself. For weeks, the public was left wondering whether Musk was acting in his private capacity or as a public employee. Two weeks after the inauguration, the White House confirmed that Musk was hired as a special government employee. This alone raises transparency concerns because special government employees are subject to relaxed financial reporting and conflicts-of-interest requirements compared to ordinary federal employees. In this case, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the White House has informed the press that Musk will police his own conflicts of interest.
One might assume, however, that Musk’s employment resolves a separate question surrounding DOGE: Who is its administrator?
On Feb. 17, the federal government filed an affidavit in a pending case to clarify Musk’s role. The affidavit explains that Musk is an employee of the White House Office—not DOGE or the DOGE Service Temporary Organization.
Lambert here: I’m not sure whether “White House Office” means the “White House Presidential Personnel Office” or the “Executive Office of the President.” Wikipedia clarifies: “The White House Office is an entity within the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP). The White House Office is headed by the White House chief of staff, who is also the head of the Executive Office of the President.” So we have a new term in the Government Entity vocabulary!
It concludes, “Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator.” The affidavit does not provide the name of the DOGE administrator. It also does not state whether that position is vacant. A bare minimum requirement of transparency is that the public be able to hold an agency’s leader accountable for the agency’s actions.
Then there is the big question: What has DOGE been doing? Its website purports to offer the answer.
Yet a brief glimpse of the data raises questions about its accuracy. One row describes a lease terminated for an “agency” called “Allowance to Former Presidents.” Additional information shows that the property is 7,682 square feet, costs $128,233 per year, and is in Atlanta, Georgia. The GSA maintains a database of property leased by the federal government. Cross-referencing the information on DOGE’s website with GSA’s database reveals that the federal government was leasing this property from “The Carter Center, Inc.” The Carter Center is a nonprofit organization founded by former President Carter, who died on Dec. 29, 2024.
The Former Presidents Act provides former presidents with certain post-presidency benefits. Subsection (c) of that Act says, “The Administrator of General Services shall furnish for each former President suitable office space appropriately furnished and equipped, as determined by the Administrator, at such place within the United States as the former President shall specify.” As one might expect, Carter’s office was located in the Carter Center, and GSA leased office space for Carter from the Carter Center.
DOGE is likely not responsible for the termination of GSA’s lease of the Carter Center. The benefits to Carter under the Former Presidents Act expired upon his death. We can debate whether the Former Presidents Act is good policy and whether the federal government should provide these sorts of benefits to former presidents. Yet DOGE did not produce these “savings” listed on its website.
DOGE is likely not responsible for the termination of GSA’s lease of the Carter Center. The benefits to Carter under the Former Presidents Act expired upon his death. [Carter died December 29, 2024.] We can debate whether the Former Presidents Act is good policy and whether the federal government should provide these sorts of benefits to former presidents. Yet DOGE did not produce these “savings” listed on its website.
A separate line item appears to overstate the value of one of the savings. That item says DOGE canceled a contract of almost $8 billion with D&G Support Services for services provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Investigative reporting from the New York Times revealed that the contract was valued at only $8 million. The New York Times explained, “The $7,992 billion mistake was discovered simply because it was the first item The Upshot reviewed, after sorting the list by the savings amount.” Reviewing other line items for inaccuracies will take additional time.
These potentially misleading line items raise concerns that the data provided by DOGE may not accurately describe what the agency does or how much it has saved. If a more comprehensive audit reveals similar inaccuracies, keeping this data up could create a false impression for the public that DOGE has accomplished meaningful spending cuts.
Lambert here: Dry, very dry,
Add new comment