Who’s Afraid of an Audit? The Real Reason Bureaucrats Don’t Want DOGE Looking at Their Books

Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of misguided complaints about government audits. The problem? Many people don’t seem to understand what an audit actually is. So, let’s clear that up.

There are many kinds of audits—financial audits, legal audits, manufacturing audits. There are internal audits (conducted within an organization to check its own processes) and external audits (conducted by independent parties to ensure accountability). Generally, the gold standard of auditing is to have a truly independent third party conduct the review. That independence ensures an objective analysis rather than a self-serving rubber stamp.

DOGE: The Government’s IT Auditor

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) didn’t appear out of thin air. It was created by Executive Order 14158 on January 20, when President Trump exercised his authority to reorganize an existing government body: the United States Digital Service (USDS).

Originally, the USDS was created by President Obama to provide IT oversight, review, and audits of executive branch agencies' digital systems. The idea behind the USDS was to bring tech expertise into government, modernizing IT infrastructure and improving efficiency across federal agencies. It functioned largely as a technical consultant and evaluator, stepping in to help agencies with their IT modernization efforts.

President Trump’s Executive Order renamed the USDS as the United States DOGE Service, but the organization remains fundamentally similar in purpose. However, while USDS focused primarily on modernization and technical improvement, Trump’s directive to DOGE added a new layer of scrutiny:

Identify whether and where existing government IT systems allow for financially questionable or fraudulent misuse.

This shift is critical. Instead of merely helping agencies fix outdated technology, DOGE has been explicitly tasked with uncovering financial waste, fraud, and abuse enabled by IT systems.

It’s a subtle but powerful difference: under Obama, the USDS helped government offices, if they asked. Under President Trump, DOGE is now an auditor seeking to evaluate the systems whether an Agency likes that or not.

This shift in focus is precisely what has rattled certain corners of the bureaucracy. Auditing government spending—especially through the lens of technology—means scrutinizing contracts, budget allocations, and systemic inefficiencies that have gone unquestioned for years.

It’s particularly interesting, because just a few years ago the Democratic Biden Administration touted how enhanced IT infrastructure was going to allow the IRS to examine EVERY transaction in America that was $600 or more. At that time, the idea of ‘real-time auditing’ of every American’s financials was deemed good. Yet, strangely a simple audit of the federal agencies’ systems is now spoken of as if it were a catastrophic threat to democracy.

Elon Musk, ‘Tech Bros,’ and How Audits Actually Work

Critics of DOGE aren’t just alarmed by the agency’s new focus on uncovering financial waste and fraud. They are, or at least are pretending to be, particularly incensed that Elon Musk, “a billionaire entrepreneur with no formal government experience” is leading the charge. They mock him and his team as a band of “tech bros,” unqualified to handle government audits.

This criticism is both misguided and revealing.

First, let’s be clear about what an audit actually is. An audit is not a witch hunt, nor is it a matter of personal judgment. Audits are data-driven investigations that follow clear, established methodologies to verify compliance, expose inefficiencies, and ensure financial integrity. Auditors don’t make subjective calls—they follow the money, review the systems, and report the facts.

Second, the idea that "tech bros" are incapable of auditing IT systems is absurd. The federal government spends billions annually on digital infrastructure, yet it consistently lags behind the private sector in both efficiency and security. Who is better equipped to examine these systems—career bureaucrats with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, or experts who have built and optimized some of the most advanced digital platforms in existence?

Many have assailed the “tech bros” as too young. Again, this would be laughable except they are series.

That argument ignores history. The most transformative figures in tech—the ones who built the digital world we now live in—were all young when they made their biggest breakthroughs:

• Michael Dell started Dell Computers in his college dorm room at 19.

• Bill Gates co-founded Microsoft at 19 and launched Windows at 28.

• Steve Jobs co-founded Apple at 21 and revolutionized personal computing in his 20s.

• Mark Zuckerberg launched Facebook at 19, reshaping the way humans interact.

These innovators didn’t become successful because they were rich. They became rich because they had world-changing ideas at the same age as the so-called 'tech bros' now working at DOGE.

Ironically, the people criticizing these young auditors celebrate the work of Gates, Jobs, and Dell—but none of those men are known for their innovations today. Why? Because the biggest disruptive ideas almost always come from younger generations willing to challenge the status quo.

Elon Musk is likewise not some random outsider. He is one of the most data-driven, results-oriented individuals on the planet. He built companies that disrupted industries precisely because he could identify inefficiencies and eliminate them. PayPal revolutionized online finance. Tesla transformed the automotive industry. SpaceX single-handedly redefined space travel. And now, Musk is being tasked, after volunteering to do it for FREE, with reviewing government IT systems—systems that, historically, have been plagued by waste, inefficiency, and security failures.

“Security failures?” You might ask. Yes, in fact it is just such a system security failure that makes the most absurd claim, “That Elon wants to steal your Social Security Number” just that absurd.

The real problem for those objecting to Elon’s leadership. It’s not that they think audits are unnecessary; it’s that they don’t want audits they don’t control. If President Trump appointed himself as head of the audit team, I suspect they would be equally incensed and make the same claims that – somehow – the President isn’t entitled to know what goes on in government.

Oh…actually, they already filed a lawsuit alleging exactly that.

Headline from Bloomberg.com

The same voices who once cheered the idea of IT-powered real-time financial surveillance of everyday Americans are now warning that an audit of government spending is a danger to democracy. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Which brings us to a fundamental question: Why are they so afraid of a simple audit?

Would You Let a Kid Audit Himself?

The reality is, they aren’t afraid of audits. The government loves audits—and it loves to fail them.

The Pentagon has NEVER passed an audit. (Friends in the Marines would like me to note that the Marine Corps is the only branch within the DoD that has passed an audit—perhaps the crayons help?)

Any corporate officer, or even a small business owner, knows that a single failed audit is bad. Never passing an audit? That’s grounds for firings, lawsuits, and likely criminal investigations in the corporate world.

Yet under the Biden administration, after repeated failed audits across multiple agencies, not a single agency executive was fired. Not one.

So no, they don’t fear audits. They fear external audits. More specifically, they fear an audit from an organization with the President’s full attention.

Think of the Children: Mark, Brad, and Randy

Imagine three brothers: Mark, Brad, and Randy.

You come home to find a broken window—glass everywhere, a baseball oddly resting outside on the back deck. You ask, “Did you do this?” expecting an immediate confession.

Of course, that’s not how reality works.

So you bring in your auditor: "Mark, which one of your brothers was throwing the baseball inside?" Mark doesn’t hesitate: "It was Brad!"

Now, let’s raise the stakes. Suppose Brad stands to lose billions if he admits guilt. (That’s some window). If Brad is auditing himself, is he going to find himself guilty? What incentive does Brad have to actually say, “Yes I just cost us billions of dollars and you should probably question my competence and value in my current role.” None.

Now, let’s add another wrinkle. Suppose, knowing that an audit is inevitable, Brad starts setting conditions:

• “We can’t rush this! Audits need to move slowly. We need to find everything, so let’s go slow.”

• “We’ll let Mark do the audit... but only after Randy is away at basketball camp.”

• “Actually, we should also wait until after trash day. Make sure the audit isn’t influenced by other chores.”

Sound familiar? That’s the same delay and distraction strategy agencies use when faced with real accountability.

When audits happen in the corporate world they have a scheduled beginning, and most often a scheduled ‘end by’ date. That fixed window is designed to allow for a ‘moment in time’ picture of the situation. More importantly, that moment in time helps reach conclusions and not drag things on so long that someone might argue, “well you never really got a good picture, because you took too long.”

That’s the problem with letting government agencies audit themselves. It’s asking the people responsible for inefficiencies and failures to confirm whether inefficiencies and failures exist.

Is it any surprise that many of those Brads start saying that audits are a ‘threat to democracy.’

So Who Should We Trust?

On one side, we have Elon Musk—a man worth $400 billion, who made his fortune by building companies that revolutionized industries. Let’s run down his track record:

• PayPal: He co-founded one of the world’s first major online payment platforms, handling the financial data of millions without breaching that trust.

• Tesla: Took a small electric car company and turned it into the most valuable auto manufacturer on the planet.

• SpaceX: Reduced the cost of getting to low Earth orbit by 90%—a game-changer for space travel. SpaceX is so successful, that they are the only American company able to send a rescue mission to retrieve astronauts stranded due to Boeing’s failure.

Twitter (X): He has not only opened up a free marketplace of ideas but is doing it in a financially amazing way that has DOUBLED EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization). Even More amazing, he has doubled EBITDA on a reduced overall revenue. Prior to Elon buying Twitter they had $5 billion in revenue, but ‘only’ $600 million in EBITDA because of absurd overhead.

Musk’s wealth and success come from solving problems, not manipulating bureaucratic inertia. He is weird. Let’s be clear. But that weirdness is precisely what makes him so good at identifying problems and working to solve them. There is not one single other human alive that has grown value as greatly or solved as many problems as Elon Musk.

Recall – space was dead. NASA had retired the shuttles. We were relying on RUSSIANS to get us to the international space station. Elon and his team said, “yeah…we think Space isn’t dead. We think we can reuse rockets. Oh and…we think we can land rockets and even catch them with chopsticks.” In less than 15 years, they did ALL OF THAT!

On the other side, we have the Brads—faceless bureaucrats who operate with little oversight and whose livelihoods depend on keeping the system exactly as it is. Washington, D.C., home to a disproportionate number of these government employees, voted 90% Democrat in the last election. That kind of political homogeneity isn’t just unusual—it suggests a deeply entrenched culture resistant to change, particularly change that threatens job security or budget justifications.

These bureaucrats didn’t vote for Trump. They don’t support Trump. And they certainly don’t support Musk stepping in to audit their agencies. But the reality is that 77 million Americans did vote for Trump and the policies that come with him—including government accountability.

Auditors Don’t Steal—They Reveal the Theft

At the end of the day, an auditor’s job is simple: follow the data. Auditors don’t steal—they reveal theft. That’s what DOGE under Musk is meant to do.

So, who do I trust more?

• A billionaire entrepreneur whose entire career has been built on efficiency, data, and problem-solving?

• Or a bureaucratic machine that insists it should be trusted to audit itself?

For me, that’s not a hard choice.