Politicians frequently express enthusiasm for the concept of eradicating waste, fraud, and abuse within government operations. This notion is often framed as a way to uncover free money for essential services and initiatives.
Imagine proposing an additional expenditure of half a trillion dollars for defense needs. While this could potentially disrupt the budget, the argument often made is, “I will simultaneously eliminate half a trillion by addressing waste, fraud, and abuse.” This presents the illusion of a budget-neutral scenario, which can encourage policymakers to proceed.
Do you see the paradox?
This is exemplified by former President Ronald Reagan, who ran for the presidency on the promise that cutting down on waste, fraud, and abuse while also reducing taxes and increasing military expenditures could lead to a balanced budget. It’s astonishing, but it’s true.
This issue transcends party lines.
Former President Bill Clinton emphasized his administration’s commitment to eradicating waste, fraud, and abuse in programs like Medicare. At times, Clinton managed to achieve a budget surplus, which is a noteworthy accomplishment.
Similarly, President Barack Obama launched the “Campaign to Cut Waste,” aiming to reduce improper payments by a staggering $50 billion before the end of 2012. While Obama made some progress toward this ambitious goal, the initiative was largely set aside in later years.
Now, enter Donald Trump, who, with the backing of his ally Elon Musk, claimed he could save between $1 trillion and $2 trillion by cutting down on waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending.
It’s tempting to think that previous presidents were mistaken and that Trump alone possesses the capability to eradicate significant amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse.
It’s crucial to understand that a sensible interpretation of “waste, fraud, and abuse” refers strictly to those terms — not simply to differing policy preferences. For instance, if I oppose space exploration, I might label the entire NASA budget as “waste,” when, in fact, it simply reflects my disagreement with Congress’s allocation of funds. The same logic applies if I am pacifist and categorize the entire military budget as waste, or if I am a staunch capitalist who views the government’s safety net — including welfare and unemployment insurance — as unnecessary.
While you could technically cut these programs, doing so wouldn’t eliminate any waste; it would merely reflect my policy preferences, rather than those of Congress.
When Musk advocates for the elimination of USAID, he does not eradicate waste; rather, he removes a program that Congress deemed beneficial, simply based on his own disagreement. The same argument applies to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs: opinions may vary regarding their value, but they do not inherently fit the conventional definition of waste.
Moreover, after Congress approves spending, it’s questionable whether Trump or Musk possesses the authority to disregard appropriations. The control over spending primarily resides with Congress. If there are disagreements regarding spending decisions, the appropriate course of action is to address those concerns with Congress, not to instruct others to ignore appropriated funds.
This is not to imply that waste does not exist within government operations. Surely, it does. Any organization that manages substantial funds and is run by humans is susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse.
For instance, spending $400 on a hammer is a clear case of waste. Similarly, a $7,600 coffee maker or a $10,000 toilet seat cover exemplifies extreme waste in government spending.
Had it been true that individuals aged 150 were receiving Social Security benefits, that would undoubtedly be waste. However, that scenario does not reflect reality.
The concepts of “fraud” and “abuse” represent even more severe instances than mere waste. If there are individuals engaged in defrauding the government, it would be imperative for the government to take legal action against them — or even prosecute them for fraud. Those who commit fraud should face appropriate consequences. Yet, I have yet to hear any discussions regarding DOGE (or anyone else) pursuing legal action against recently identified fraudsters.
The same applies to instances of abuse.
Is it conceivable that DOGE has not effectively addressed any situations that genuinely qualify as “fraud”?
What, in reality, have Musk and the DOGE team saved America by targeting waste, fraud, and abuse?
At this point, we remain in the dark.
First and foremost, it is essential to note that many entities that DOGE targeted were simply agencies that Musk personally disapproved of. While eliminating these agencies may indeed lower federal spending, whether that is beneficial or detrimental is debatable, and it does not equate to the elimination of waste, fraud, or abuse.
Secondly, numerous federal employees who were laid off due to DOGE’s actions will likely be reinstated, meaning the purported savings from these job cuts cannot be accurately counted.
Thirdly, the legal complexities surrounding Musk’s various actions necessitate extensive time and resources from government attorneys, who must investigate Musk’s activities and litigate any potential legal violations. The costs incurred by the government in legal fees should be deducted from any amount DOGE claims to have saved.
Fourthly, Musk and his team have not conducted a thorough audit, leaving no one with a clear understanding of what Musk could legitimately assert as savings.
Perhaps in the future, someone will undertake the task of calculating whether Musk’s dramatic actions actually resulted in any savings for taxpayers.
Lastly, consider this notable remark from Trump:
Additionally, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security benefits are not being cut; instead, they are being strengthened and protected from the radical and destructive Democrats by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse from those programs.
In his speech while signing the Big, Beautiful Bill, Trump reiterated this sentiment:
The largest spending cut — $1.7 trillion — and yet you won’t even notice it. It’s just waste, fraud, and abuse.
If I were in your position, I would approach that claim with skepticism.
And don’t forget to account for the cost of the salt shaker.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance, and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com .
For more of the latest in litigation, regulation, deals, and financial services trends, sign up for Finance Docket, a partnership between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
