We’ve all heard by now how the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) uncovered questionable expenditures by USAID—spending that appears inconsistent with the agency’s stated mission of international development.The dollar amounts and nature of the expenditures have been laid out.
The accountability trail remains—the names, signatures, and justifications behind each transaction.
The paper trail exists if DOGE and its auditors could access these records. That means at some point, someone in USAID recommended the expenditure, someone approved it, someone processed the payment, and someone signed off on it. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG)—which exists specifically to audit, review, and prevent waste—should have been aware. Yet, where was the internal oversight if these expenditures were improper? Who in the agency was responsible for ensuring taxpayer money was used correctly?
The Inspector General’s job is to provide a check against mismanagement. If DOGE’s findings are accurate, it raises a larger question:
- Why weren’t the IGs and internal auditors flagging this spending themselves?
- Why did it take an outside investigative team to uncover these financial discrepancies?
Now consider the firings of various Inspectors General under President Trump. Critics framed it as political but viewed through this lens, the reason becomes clear—they were removed because they failed in their fundamental duty: protecting the public’s money. If watchdogs don’t bark during a break-in, what good are they?
This isn’t about politics. It’s about responsibility and oversight. Every dollar spent has a name attached to it. Every transaction has a justification memo, an authorization, and an approval signature. The public should know who signed off, who processed the payments, and why it took DOGE to expose what internal auditors should have caught.
And if the answers don’t add up, then further action should follow.
- Why aren’t those in the know helping? It’s still their job; the goal is to do it accurately and quickly without unnecessary harm. Could it be some want to stonewall or sabotage?
- What about those identified from the audit trail?
- What about omitted references on the purpose of expenditure?
- What about confirming and controlling how all the funds were spent and for the intended purposes? With $50 billion unaccounted for in Ukraine that may have gone for non-fighting, you just have to wonder.
- Last but not least, is there evidence of kickbacks and theft through NGOs, and who knows who?
- Oops, one more thing. Improved auditing procedures and guidelines for out-of-agency or third-party auditors to check the books for shady practices and fake names, to name a few.