DOGE having access to government agencies is illegal

There is no transparency, there is nothing wrong with trimming the government in a thoughtful manner, but having the Fox overlook the Henhouse when Elon is one of the biggest US government grifters is a major problem.

And there is ZERO transparency or oversight......this comes off as popular until people realize they were conned.

All a Dem has to do is promise $25 for minimum Wage, Tax the Rich, tax corporations, no tax rise for anyone making less than 400k.....and money back for trade schools and other education - actually focus on the economy and people's pocket books and this all flips in an instant.

DD

 

Why do you do personal attacks, what does my weight have to do with anything? The problem is you hold no sway or are crap at arguing or getting your point across.

Maybe if you spoke with respect and actually brought information or facts, people would engage in a more thoughtful manner.

I know it is easy to blame others for ganging up, rather than looking at your participation and how it perpetuates who you are or how you are seen on this message board.

We could all be better, but most of how others perceive us, is our own fault.

And the fact that things are anonymous for some and not for others, is part of the problem, make it all public and see how it goes.

DD

 

The USAID “Scandal” and the Playbook of Manufactured Outrage
The dismantling of USAID isn’t about fraud. It’s not about waste. And it’s certainly not about making government more efficient. Instead, it’s a test case for a new era of governance—one where facts are optional, reality is shaped by cherry-picked narratives, and faith in a leader replaces independent sources of truth.
Rather than conducting an actual audit, Musk and Trump have used a familiar tactic—manufacture a scandal, flood the space with selective outrage, and use it to justify dismantling an agency they already wanted gone. It’s an attack on facts themselves—and if it works here, it will be repeated elsewhere.
---
Misinformation doesn’t have to be an outright lie to be effective. The most powerful form of disinformation is cherry-picking—taking a real event or number, stripping it of context, and reframing it for maximum outrage.
Take a look at a few of the White House’s official justifications for gutting USAID:

Claim: “USAID spent $6 million on tourism in Egypt.”
Reality: This funding was for education and economic development in North Sinai, not tourism. The grant was announced in 2019 during Trump’s first administration. Stripping away the date and purpose makes it sound like a recent, frivolous expenditure rather than part of an established economic aid initiative.

Claim: “USAID spent $1.5 million to promote workplace diversity in Serbia.”
Reality: This was part of a broader economic initiative to increase job opportunities in Serbia—where workplace discrimination limits economic participation. The program focused on helping businesses grow by improving inclusivity—but was reframed as an ideological “waste” rather than an economic development effort.

Claim: “USAID spent $47,000 on a transgender opera in Colombia.”
Reality: This was not a USAID grant at all—it was issued by the State Department, not USAID. The grant supported an arts program aimed at increasing representation in Colombia’s opera scene. By misattributing the funding to USAID and framing it solely as a “transgender opera”, the claim was designed to provoke cultural outrage rather than discuss arts funding in global diplomacy.
Could an actual audit be conducted on how these funds were used? Absolutely. In a functioning government, there should always be room for debate over whether certain initiatives are priorities or whether they are effective. But that is not what is happening here.
Instead of evaluating whether these programs delivered results or whether better alternatives exist, these numbers were stripped of context and framed for maximum outrage—not to improve policy, but to justify dismantling an agency outright. A real debate would analyze impact and effectiveness, not manipulate selective facts to push a predetermined conclusion.
The biggest red flag? If USAID were truly corrupt, they would be showing full financial audits, not vague accusations.
---
If the goal were actually to root out inefficiencies, a proper USAID audit wouldn’t be done in a day or two based on cherry-picked spending line items. Audits—even for small organizations—are lengthy, comprehensive, and detail both strengths and weaknesses.
A real audit would:

• Be conducted by independent agencies (GAO, OIG, CBO), qualified and experienced leaders, or objective, appointed and vettyed contracted individuals or organizations.
• Use full financial forensic analysis, not cherry-picked line items.
• Compare USAID to other government expenditures for context.
• Provide publicly available, transparent findings.
• Recommend measured reforms, not mass firings.

Real audits include:

• Positives and negatives—not just failures.
• Strengths and weaknesses—where the agency is effective and where it isn’t.
• Successes and failures—not just the failures someone wants to highlight.
• Annotated findings with full transparency—each claim links back to data.

This takes months, not days—because an audit can’t be done by just extracting data, running it through an algorithm (AI or otherwise), and issuing selective pronouncements.

Instead, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) simply declared USAID “beyond repair” and started shutting it down—no audit needed.

This isn’t about USAID—it’s about eliminating institutions. And if they can do this to USAID, they can do it to the CDC, NOAA, or any other agency that provides inconvenient facts.
---
The attack on USAID is just the beginning. If this strategy works, other congressionally created and funded agencies that provide oversight, enforce regulations, or provide objective information will be next.
The same manufactured outrage playbook will be applied to:

• The CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) – Criticized for interfering in free markets and overregulating financial institutions.
• The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) – Framed as an obstacle to economic growth by restricting corporate and investment practices.
• The IRS – Cast as a weaponized agency persecuting political enemies.
• The Pentagon – Attacked over spending inefficiencies and social policies.
• The Federal Reserve – Accused of economic manipulation and globalist control.
• The DOJ & FBI – Portrayed as corrupt institutions waging partisan investigations.
• The Department of Education – Framed as a wasteful bureaucracy pushing ideological agendas.
• The EPA – Blamed for stifling business growth through overregulation.

Each will be misrepresented and undermined not through comprehensive audits and evidence-based reform, but through cherry-picked data, selective outrage, and preordained conclusions that justify dismantling their authority.

The irony? Real audits of these agencies would be fantastic. If the goal were truly efficiency, effectiveness, and responsible governance, independent reviews would be welcomed. A thorough, transparent audit of USAID, the CFPB, the SEC, the IRS, or the Pentagon would provide critical insights for better decision-making. But that’s not what’s happening.

Instead of pursuing genuine oversight and accountability, the administration is manufacturing outrage and using it as a justification to dismantle institutions outright—not to fix them, but to eliminate their independence.
---
The final step in this process isn’t just about cutting waste—it’s about removing any part of the government that isn’t directly controlled by the executive branch.

• No independent oversight.
• No neutral agencies providing inconvenient data.
• No checks on power.

This isn’t about USAID—it’s about whether any institution will be allowed to exist outside the direct control of a single leader.
The next time an agency or institution is suddenly declared “too corrupt to fix,” ask yourself:

• Where’s the full audit?
• Why is the data missing?
• Who benefits from removing this institution?

When facts disappear, power takes their place. That’s what’s happening here.


From: Joel Emery.


Nails it.

DD