-
Diggili Skippili
- No Comments
- DOGE
Many experts assumed DOGE would be an ineffectual advisory body, doing little operationally while spreading false narratives about government. Yet DOGE appears to be accomplishing far more.
Whistleblowers allege that DOGE teams have obtained personal data from multiple federal databases and may be creating an aggregate of Americans’ information.
What is DOGE?
Since DOGE was first created, its structure and decision-making have remained obscure. Although the White House claims the operation of DOGE is transparent, no details regarding membership or how the team carries out their tasks have been provided by DOGE itself.
DOGE members are classified as Senior Advisors to the President (SGEs), an appointment which allows them to operate outside traditional conflict of interest and ethical regulations. Gibson Dunn has reported that SGEs do not face the same transparency requirements as federal employees or longer-serving Advisors and have been allowed access to government data systems without being subject to security clearance reviews.
DOGE’s purported savings tracker includes contract cancellations that never happened and other inaccurate claims; to fully understand how DOGE meets its goals requires transparent and clear reporting.
Why is DOGE needed?
DOGE was established by an executive order which gives it the mandate to directly reshape federal bureaucracy rather than working through Congress or courts; yet its goals remain uncertain.
DOGE staffers have “read-access” to Americans’ data across government agencies–including sensitive details on Social Security beneficiaries, student loan borrowers and others. Court filings indicate that these personnel lack the technical training required of agency employees and could potentially combine different sources to compile dossiers about individuals or businesses that violate privacy laws.
DOGE’s massive firings at USAID, Treasury and other agencies has led to legal battles – including suits filed by employees at these agencies – as well as ethical concerns over its personnel not adhering to ethical or conflict of interest rules applied to other government employees or longer serving Senior Advisors, raising doubts as to their ability to safeguard sensitive information while safeguarding public interest.
How is DOGE accomplishing its goals?
DOGE has already made significant changes that will be difficult to undo. They have stirred legal battles, raised ethical concerns and dented public trust in government.
DOGE has used its influence to cut funding for scientific research, accelerate the decline of federal workforce numbers and push for the consolidation of data that previously had been kept separate; at one agency they informed employees they would soon start linking personal and financial records that reveal sensitive information about Americans.
Many DOGE staffers are young software engineers from tech companies who possess access to sensitive data at multiple agencies. At the Treasury Department, some have “read-access” to a system that processes trillions in federal payments annually and one member has reported full access – this poses risks to privacy as well as violations to both administrative procedures acts and executive orders from Presidents.
What is the future of DOGE?
DOGE prices exploded following media coverage and social media posts — creating a chain reaction of FOMO that lured new investors to invest. Unfortunately, however, its uncertain what will become of DOGE prices in the long run.
But even supporters of smaller government can understand why DOGE could seem chaotic and disorganized; there are more orderly methods of cutting federal spending. One such initiative was during President Clinton’s National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR), wherein multi-year efforts identified efficiencies and savings across agencies and departments.
DOGE remains uncertain as it faces multiple lawsuits it has already generated. Its staffers include young male software engineers from the tech world and short-serving Senior White House Advisors not subject to ethics and conflict-of-interest rules as other federal employees or long-term Advisors; for instance, its targeting of USAID has drawn legal challenge from unions and government watchdogs.
