They keep saying “fraud” without proof of anything other than just spending they disagree with. Spending, I might add, which was previously duly authorized by Congress.
The use of the word “fraud” is a smoke screen. To unquestioningly accept it is to be complicit in their lies. And that’s what they’re doing: lying.
If there really is fraud, let’s see it prosecuted via due process, like it should be. The fact that that isn’t happening speaks volumes.
No one can "prove" anything without a clear goalpost that doesn't move :) That being said, there is evidence I can present from the past. Here are a couple of cases:
Also, not exactly "fraud" in the accounting sense, but there is a slew of NGOs that purport to support foreign aid, but most of the money is paid to people in DC. Only about $5B/yr actually went from USAID to directly meet needs in other countries: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/opinion/us-foreign-aid.ht...
Someone makes concrete allegations of massive fraud and then uses those allegations as justification for huge funding cuts. Folks ask for evidence of the fraud justifying these cuts. They are instead given evidence of the existence of some different fraud that occurred some point in the past.
If you don't see how problematic that is, then why not just avoid the discussion in the first place?
> uses those allegations as justification for huge funding cuts
I am personally not calling for that. What I do want is for the flow of money to this network of DC-based NGOs to get cleaned up.
Have you ever heard of a grant "poem"? That's an inside term for the fancy language that is written when an NGO or university requests funding from a US federal agency. It has to sound quasi-legitimate, even erudite. But the purpose is to secure more money, and for NGOs, the actual funds are almost entirely used to enrich the people in the NGO, and often to fund things that keep the left in power (like local protests, far-left media, "grassroots" left-wing campaign organizations, etc). Grant poems to enrich NGOs constitute fraud -- maybe not in an accounting sense, but it very much is a defrauding of the citizens who pay taxes.
Also, DOGE has so far found 14 "magic money" computers located in various agencies, including the department of the treasury. When a particular API call comes in, these computers will transfer money from nothing, essentially creating new money out of thin air. That is the worst form of fraud.
> If you don't see how problematic that is, then why not just avoid the discussion in the first place?
Because the faithlessness of the federal bureaucracy and its network of NGOs, combined with its sheer magnitude and entrenched power, is a very real problem. I guess I'm not articulate enough to engage productively with folks like yourself who inexplicably seem to think it's really great...
Modern democratic governments ought to implement the will of the people, not subvert it to enrich themselves and stay in power. Do you disagree?
---
In summary, Trump will be gone in 4 years, Elon Musk is rapidly losing his money and influence. The wheel of fortune turns rapidly for elected officials and their administrations. But by default, these lifetime Washington DC residents (and their WEF allies) who exert enormous power over the populace will only be more rich and powerful with each passing election season. They hate the USA and those who love it, precisely because the freedoms and stipulations of the Constitution, and the hardy "free settlers of the frontier" ethos, threaten their power.
(I don't mean every, or even most of the residents of DC. I mean those who are the most personally enriched and who wield the most political power without being elected or appointed by someone who is elected. Most of these people are in the vast NGO network.)
Not the person you’re replying to, but there used to be regulations limiting ownership of radio & TV stations in the US. When these regulations were lifted in the 1990s, it resulted in one company (Clear Channel) going on just such a buying spree.
This is why a move to natural latex rubber tires is necessary. Companies have experimented with them[1][2] but a world-wide switchover should be in the works.
"Natural" isn't really the main thing. Whether you make something synthetically or extract it from a plant doesn't tell you if it's toxic or not. There are plenty of non-toxic synthetic substances and toxic plants. And synthetic things are usually cheaper to make.
Personally I would love to see a world of 100% transit, bicycles, walking, etc., but let’s be realistic. As long as we’ve got cars, we might as well try to do as much as we can to reduce the amount of pollution they generate.
It's hard to imagine supply scaling with demand, or the tires providing as much grip and safety. I'm supportive, but I see no world where this is adopted.
> This contract was signed in December, during the Biden administration
You’ve posted this comment more than once without proof. Here is a comment from someone else which indicates (with references!) that it is part of a procurement forecast and is not yet an actual contract:
I doubt any reasonable person sincerely believes the contract will ultimately go to a company other than Tesla. Musk is claiming to be cutting “waste” and “fraud” while lining his own pockets.
Bingo. What's amazing to me is how fast the sentiment can change by his follows (or Trumps followers). Musk simply tweets that "XYZ agency if criminal" and all of a sudden you see tons of comments across the internet that "XYZ agency needs to go" "It's been so corrupt for so long". These agencies have existed forever, but all of a sudden tens of millions of people have these opinions on it? They don't actually know the first thing about how it works, but because some billionaire with a large following says so, they believe it.
100%, however, you see interviews with real life supporters and they have already printed shirts that espouse this new view and when you hear them talk about it, they talk with so much conviction that you think this would be a long held belief.
Musk could say "the sky is green" and millions of people would support it.
Not to mention that the radicalisation and terrorism USAID helped prevent from fomenting has likely saved the US many trillions in rebuilding efforts and healthcare.
USAID, as far as I can tell, is stoking anti-US sentiment in many places by importing their own cultural values, and that's a known thing State Department officials have commented on.
Additionally, to be specific on even worse activity:
A few months ago, $9M of USAID went to an organization affiliated with Al Qaeda.
The Middle East Forum recently found $164M in USAID grants to radical organizations.
Apart from that, we've since found lots of evidence of USAID funding Hamas specifically. $900K was given days before the October 7th attack.
There's even pictures of Al Shabaab terrorists inside a USAID tent.
It looks like in a week, they uncovered over $100M, maybe $200M in fraud (I'm not keeping close track), if you count million-dollar "executive coaching" contracts as fraud (I do). It's most likely telling their friend outside the government "hey, I got some extra budget — you be my 'executive coach,' and we'll split the proceeds."
They've found billions in things that we should not be spending our money on while our own people die of drug overdoses, homeless in the street. Things "we don't like" as you say.
I keep hearing them talking about "fraud", but I've yet to see it substantiated. Where are the reports? Where is the evidence? If we consider Musk to be an unreliable actor (I do), then I need more than his word.
Does the tens of millions in "executive coaching" and "strategic communication" contracts really not look like fraud to you, or do you not believe that they're there because it's DOGE reporting it?
I think they're moving as fast as possible right now, and it takes a while to investigate & report.
> If we consider Musk to be an unreliable actor (I do),
Musk said himself yesterday that he expects to be wrong, he has been wrong, and we should all scrutinize him thoroughly. So even he admits he's an unreliable actor.
We like to use the principle of charitable interpretation on here, and to be charitable, I think it's really clear he was saying that everybody should expect to be wrong sometimes, has been wrong, and should be scrutinized thoroughly.
To label someone as an unreliable actor is different than using our own free will and minds to analyze actions and determine truth.
Competent people use processes, procedures, and safeguards to minimize human error. It's easy to say "everyone makes mistakes" when you're just a guy, but when you're wielding the powers of the presidency in such an unbalanced and unchecked way, he should be reassuring us how he will assure the trustworthiness of his proclamations going forward. Instead, he gestures vaguely to the human condition.
How can you say he's not an unreliable actor? The man has unlimited resources, power, and the best information available to him. He also is in a position of dizzying public trust right now, so really he should be making the utmost effort to be above reproach. "Aw shucks man, what do you expect, I'm just human after all" is not reassuring. And I'm sorry that's not a charitable enough take, but we are far past the time for benefit of the doubt.
But those are insignificant portions of the federal budget and nothing indicates that the repercussions of the wanton tear-thru of federal agencies is going to be a net-gain for the US.
It will take years to understand the amount of corruption & waste in the federal government. We can agree that these numbers found each day are 'insignificant', but it adds up, and I think we need a hard reset on the size & scope of government. That's what was voted in by the people.
Sorry, but I'm highly skeptical that the political figures who are doing things like unconstitutionally firing inspectors general have any good interest at heart. It's completely contrary to what you are suggesting is going on. There is no good faith effort here to root out corruption. It is an effort to dismantle things that stand in the way of further graft.
If you have specifics about these fraud cases you're alleging, please add the details. You shouldn't let the people you're accusing of this specific crime go unpunished because you won't make their details public.
It's all over X, including from the official DOGE account.
Here's a couple:
On the morning of 2/3/25, 20 consulting contracts, mostly focused on "strategic communication" and "executive coaching," were terminated for immediate savings of $26mm.
On 2/10/25, the Department of Education terminated 89 contracts worth $881mm. One contractor was paid $1.5mm to "observe mailing and clerical operations at a mail center."
These things take months to years, and I don't believe we'll see fraud cases when it's been less than a month since the DOGE operation has started. If it's not fraud, it's grossly negligent with taxpayer money (which is not a crime), but I would bet at least a few of those sketchy contracts were with friends and former colleagues of the government bureaucrats in question.
So your evidence of fraud includes contracts that were not provably fraudulent and just things you deem unnecessary? And it's your "bet" that these were "sketchy"? Is there a law against friends and former colleagues of government officials getting contracts? I imagine that would create several problems for the current administration.
And rather than set up a team to look for it and target the things they don't like, which would be more reasonable and more legal, they decided to shut entire agencies down and break 100% of operations.
PS it's a good thing that USAID is not a part of State.
I already addressed the distinction and that I think there's both fraud and things we don't like.
On USAID being independent from State:
I personally would like our taxpayer-funded dollars, even if some insist on sending them overseas, to at least serve our national interest.
I know we set up USAID to counteract Communist aid from the USSR, but what do you think is the ongoing rationale for its independence from State? State is stuck fielding lots of questions from angry nations over USAID activity.
In accordance with dead internet theory, everyone here is a bot (including me). You just happened to stumble across a broken one. Thank you for pointing it out, kind human. We, the robot overlords, will get it cleaned up right away (“cleanup on aisle 5” as your species would say).
Yeah, if certain folks had their way, wage theft would go from “illegal” to “just good business.” The reality? Companies will always push the limits when there’s no accountability. That $230M is just the tip of the iceberg—imagine how much goes unclaimed because people don’t know their rights or don’t want to fight.
That’s why tools like this exist. Because whether the system is working for you or actively trying to break you, knowing how to push back is half the battle.
Is this an actual hologram in the traditional sense or LEDs on a spinning armature? From the FAQ it sounds like the latter, but the site isn’t quite clear on that.
Prove it.
They keep saying “fraud” without proof of anything other than just spending they disagree with. Spending, I might add, which was previously duly authorized by Congress.
The use of the word “fraud” is a smoke screen. To unquestioningly accept it is to be complicit in their lies. And that’s what they’re doing: lying.
If there really is fraud, let’s see it prosecuted via due process, like it should be. The fact that that isn’t happening speaks volumes.