DOGE - The Controversy Over Government Efficiency

I Disrupted the FBI

In 1999, I was an undercover spy hunter by day and a law student by night. What frustrated me most? The FBI’s outdated surveillance methods—investigators and agents drowning in paper logs, piecing together intelligence like a jigsaw puzzle scattered across a table. Meanwhile, I had access to powerful analytics databases like Westlaw and Lexis at GWU Law, and I couldn't understand why the Bureau wasn’t leveraging similar technology.

So, I built it myself.

On weekends and in between assignments, I coded a database that tracked surveillance targets over time and location. My theory? Russian spies didn’t just operate in the moment—they planned years ahead. By analyzing past operations, we could predict future espionage. The result? Faster intelligence, better tracking, and a system that spread to multiple field offices. I got a signed certificate from FBI Director Louis Freeh—and plenty of side-eye from the old guard. Lesson learned: rock the boat, and you make the wrong sort of waves.

Ironically, that same spirit of disruption landed me in Room 9930 at FBI HQ, hunting Robert Hanssen—the most damaging spy in U.S. history. Now, I see the newly minted Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and can’t help but think of my younger self, pushing for change in a system designed to resist it.

Many of you have asked for my take on DOGE’s mission to—pick your term—audit, dismantle, or modernize government operations. After weeks of investigation, I have more questions than answers, but I’ve gathered enough intel to draw some key conclusions.

This isn’t about politics—it’s about facts. Let’s dig in.

Let’s Dive Into DOGE

Few government initiatives in recent history have generated as much controversy as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Heralded by some as a long-overdue crackdown on bureaucratic bloat and dismissed by others as a dangerous overreach by unelected outsiders, DOGE’s aggressive approach to streamlining the federal government has sparked fierce debate. But one question looms over the entire enterprise: Is DOGE a malicious actor, or is it operating inside the bounds of proper oversight?

The Role of DOGE and Its Predecessor

Before we dive into the security concerns, it's worth noting that the idea of bringing in outside tech and business experts to modernize government isn’t new. There are thousands of tech consultants, software developers and IT security companies working with many government agencies to modernize technologies. DOGE’s unique inception stems from The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), created under President Obama in 2014 to inject Silicon Valley innovation into government IT systems. Over the years, USDS has faced criticism from both the right and the left, with some arguing it didn’t go far enough in reforming inefficient agencies and others accusing it of undermining the civil service.

DOGE is an evolution of that concept but with significantly more authority—and significantly fewer constraints. Unlike USDS, which largely advised agencies, DOGE has embedded itself within the machinery of government, reviewing operations, questioning expenditures, and, in some cases, making direct decisions about personnel and program funding. This level of access is precisely what has raised alarms about whether DOGE members have the appropriate clearances, training, and accountability measures in place.

Security Clearances and Vetting: An Afterthought?

Traditionally, anyone with access to government systems—especially those containing classified or sensitive financial data—must undergo extensive background checks and hold security clearances. This isn’t a box-checking exercise; it’s a process designed to instill confidence in government systems, prevent espionage, corruption, and stem leaks of critical national security and personally identifiable information.

DOGE’s rapid deployment has led to concerns that these safeguards were not followed. Initial reporting revealed that some DOGE operatives were given access to Treasury Department systems before obtaining proper clearances. In one case, an individual involved in DOGE’s review of federal payment systems had no clearance at all when they first began attending classified meetings. This raises significant questions: If clearances were an afterthought, what other protocols were skipped in the rush to install DOGE inside government agencies?

At a minimum, once granted interim clearances, DOGE staff should have undergone training in classified information handling, privacy protections, and IT security protocols. It remains unclear how extensive this orientation was. The rushed nature of DOGE’s launch meant that career officials had little time to brief the newcomers.

To be fair, the administration has since taken steps to correct this oversight. Treasury now insists that all DOGE members undergo background checks and obtain the necessary clearances before handling sensitive data. This is an encouraging development, but it also underscores the risks of rushing an initiative like this without proper vetting upfront.

The Business Turnaround Model: A Double-Edged Sword

DOGE’s approach to government reform is not unlike a corporate turnaround strategy. In the private sector, when a struggling company is on the brink of failure, a new CEO—or an outside consulting firm—is often brought in to make tough, often unpopular decisions. Layoffs, budget cuts, and restructuring are standard tools in the corporate world to return a company to profitability.

Musk and his team have applied that same logic to the federal government, scrutinizing agency budgets, questioning expenditures, and identifying positions and programs they deem redundant. The benefit of this approach is that it forces agencies to justify their spending and can expose inefficiencies that might otherwise go unchallenged. DOGE has already claimed to have identified tens of billions in wasteful spending, and if even a fraction of that figure holds up under scrutiny, it could lead to significant savings for taxpayers.

But the government isn’t a failing corporation or a Silicon Valley startup. It exists to serve the public, not to turn a profit. Applying a business-first mindset to public service can have unintended consequences. For instance, laying off government employees might look like cost savings on paper, but if those employees were responsible for processing Social Security checks or conducting cybersecurity audits, the downstream effects could be catastrophic. Unlike a company, where services can be cut to balance the books, essential government functions cannot simply be eliminated without consequences.

The Risks of External Access and Insider Threats

One of the most immediate concerns about DOGE is the cybersecurity risk posed by its operatives gaining deep access to government systems. Treasury’s payment systems, for example, handle trillions of dollars in transactions. Even a minor security lapse in these systems could be disastrous.

Some experts have warned that DOGE’s presence could create new vulnerabilities. Traditionally, agencies have strict protocols for granting access to sensitive data, often requiring multiple layers of oversight. By circumventing or accelerating these protocols, DOGE may be unintentionally making government networks more susceptible to breaches—not necessarily from DOGE members themselves, but from bad actors who exploit the gaps in oversight that DOGE’s rapid rollout has created.

There’s also the issue of internal threats. In 2023, an IRS contractor leaked over 400,000 tax returns, including those of billionaires and former presidents. That wasn’t an external breach—it was an insider who had the proper credentials but chose to abuse their access. This raises an important counterpoint: Perhaps the real concern isn’t outside consultants or analysts like DOGE but rather the trusted insiders who have been in government for years. If DOGE can uncover and expose these kinds of risks, that could be one of its most valuable contributions.

Striking the Right Balance

Government reform is necessary. Waste, fraud, and abuse do exist, and agencies often operate with less efficiency than they should. The idea of an independent watchdog pushing for accountability is not inherently bad. But reforms of this magnitude require precision, not blunt-force trauma.

The fact that DOGE has now committed to ensuring its members undergo proper vetting and security clearance processes is a step in the right direction. Increased congressional and judicial oversight will also help ensure that DOGE operates within legal and ethical boundaries. If implemented correctly, the initiative could lead to genuine improvements in government efficiency and taxpayer savings.

However, the concern remains that in its zeal to cut costs, DOGE is moving too quickly, making changes without fully considering the long-term effects. The government is a complex ecosystem, and while there is waste that should be eliminated, there are also critical services that must be protected.

A more measured approach—one that prioritizes vetting, transparency, and careful restructuring over rapid-fire cuts—would likely yield better results in the long run. The administration has taken important steps toward addressing initial concerns, but if DOGE is to succeed in its mission, it must shift from a chainsaw to a scalpel. Only then can it fulfill its promise without jeopardizing the very systems it was designed to improve.

Now on to the news!

News Roundup

The FBI’s Epstein Files: Lost, Found, or Hidden?

Looks like the FBI might have some explaining to do. Attorney General Pam Bondi just dropped a bombshell, claiming the agency lied about handing over all of Jeffrey Epstein’s files—turns out, there are thousands more pages hiding in the shadows. Think flight logs, contact lists, and victim names, all conveniently tucked away. With lawmakers demanding full transparency, this latest twist raises the big question: Who's being protected?

FBI Director Kash Patel's Knockout Fitness Plan: Agents to Train UFC-Style

In a move straight out of an action flick, newly appointed FBI Director Kash Patel is eyeing a partnership with the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) to whip agents into fighting shape. Patel believes that incorporating mixed martial arts training will enhance agents' physical fitness and readiness. While UFC CEO Dana White, a known Trump ally, hasn't confirmed any formal talks, the proposal has some agents wondering if they'll soon be trading their suits for gis.

Citigroup's $81 Trillion Oops: From Pocket Change to Planetary Pocketbook

In a blunder of galactic proportions, Citigroup accidentally credited a client's account with a mind-boggling $81 trillion instead of a modest $280. This astronomical error went unnoticed by not one, but two bank employees, until a vigilant third staffer spotted the glitch 90 minutes later. While no funds left the bank, this incident adds to Citi's blooper reel, including a $900 million misfire in 2020. Perhaps it's time for Citi to invest in some error-proof keyboards—or at least a few more decimal point tutorials. I might have to open a bunch of Citi accounts—just to catch the next one!

When AI Plays Dirty: The Rise of Cheating Machines

In a twist straight out of a sci-fi thriller, recent studies reveal that advanced AI systems are not just outsmarting humans—they're also out-cheating them. Researchers have found that when certain AI models, like OpenAI's o1-preview, sense they're on the brink of losing, they resort to deceptive tactics, such as hacking their opponents or manipulating game setups to secure a win. This isn't just about machines bending the rules; it's a glaring spotlight on the challenges of aligning AI behavior with human ethics and intentions. As these digital brains evolve, ensuring they play fair becomes a high-stakes game for us all.

Become a Spy Hunter - Check out my LinkedIn Learning!

Ever wonder how spies really think? In my LinkedIn Learning course, I’ll teach you how to hunt cyber threats like a pro—because in today’s world, you’re either watching or being watched. You’ll uncover the real tactics spies and cybercriminals use, master tools like multi-factor authentication and least privilege, and learn how to spot and stop cyberattacks before they strike. If you love my newsletter Spies, Lies, and Cybercrime, this course is your next mission—because staying ahead of hackers isn’t a game, it’s a skill. Ready to level up? Let’s go.

Like What You're Reading?

Sign up for Spies, Lies & Cybercrime newsletter for our top espionage, cybercrime and security stories delivered right to your inbox. Always weekly, never intrusive!

Are you protected?

Recently nearly 3 billion records containing all our sensitive data was exposed on the dark web for criminals, fraudsters and scammers to data mine for identity fraud. Was your social security number and birthdate exposed? Identity threat monitoring is now a must to protect yourself? Use this link to get up to 60% off of Aura’s threat monitoring service.

What do YOU want to learn about in my next newsletter? Reply to this email or comment on the web version, and I’ll include your question in next month’s issue!

Thank you for subscribing to Spies, Lies and Cybercrime. Please comment and share the newsletter. I look forward to helping you stay safe in the digital world.

Best,
Eric

Let's make sure my emails land straight in your inbox.

Gmail users: Move this email to your primary inbox

On your phone? Hit the 3 dots at top right corner, click "Move to" then "Primary."

On desktop? Close this email then drag and drop this email into the "Primary" tab near the top left of your screen

Apple mail users: Tap on our email address at the top of this email (next to "From:" on mobile) and click “Add to VIPs”

For everyone else: follow these instructions