Why America needs the GAO: DOGE done right

Ten months after the launch of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, one thing is clear: no one can agree on how much money it saved—or, in fact, whether it saved any money at all—and, if there were savings, what happened to them.

What if DOGE were done right? Here something else is clear: we have had the Government Accountability Office, founded as a green-eye-shade operation back in 1921 to audit every single government transaction. It’s grown into the indispensable watchdog on the federal government’s spending and operations. It’s what DOGE done right looks like. 

At first, Musk promised to find $2 trillion in savings. Then the pledge dropped to $1 trillion. Then he struggled to document any savings at all. 

Since 2002, GAO’s work has logged more than $1.45 trillion in savings for taxpayers, across more than 29,000 different federal operations. Last year, savings were $67.5 billion. And better than most watchdogs glad to gobble up every available can of dog food, GAO has kept watch on itself. It’s measured the return on taxpayer investment in its own operations: $123 for every budget dollar. 

It's operations aren’t flashy. In fact, they’re pretty wonky, which as card-carrying wonks we greatly admire. Its staff get advanced training when they walk into the door, which never stops as employees move up through the ranks. The size of its staff, which was reduced from 5,200 staff to it current level of about 3,500 after the Republican takeover of the House in 1995, has been relatively stable over the last decade, despite expanding demands on its work. 

Musk promised to trim the number of federal agencies. “There’s so many that people have never heard of. I think we should be able to get away with 99 agencies,” he said.  It wasn’t clear where that number came from. It was clear from his work that DOGE didn’t know how to get there. 

GAO, on the other hand, has been identifying areas of duplication and overlap since 2011, with $725 billion in savings in this area alone. As others were struggling to come up with solid savings, GAO in May issued a 154-page report detailing just how to do more. 

Musk brought in IT whiz kids to comb through the federal government’s information services, but they had little to show for it except putting the security of Americans’ personal information at risk. GAO, in contrast, laid out a plan for figuring out how to save money on IT. Better proof-of-concept work in space-based laser communications could save hundreds of million dollars—and the government could pick up $157 billion by better managing the payment rates in Medicare. 

In a February Oval Office meeting, Musk claimed the federal government was full of officials who had approved money for “fraudsters,” but that claim turned out to be little more than arm-waving. GAO, in contrast, has since 1990 prepared a report every two years on programs prone to waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. Its latest report, in February 2025, identified 38 areas needing special attention. 

This “high-risk list” bears careful reading for anyone who really cares about getting into the guts of the problem. It identifies issues ranging from contract management in the Pentagon to money leaking out of federal disability programs to management of oil and gas leases to mega-challenges inside the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster assistance. Even a casual look of the report—all 323 pages of it—would convince any reader that it’s a road map for which stones to unturn to get at the unholy trinity of waste, fraud and abuse. 

But there’s more here. GAO keeps score so we can see who’s making progress—and who isn’t. In 10 areas, federal agencies made $84 billion in progress. Three slipped backwards—acquisition of weapons systems by the Pentagon, improving IT management throughout the government and managing the federal government’s property. 

And even more. GAO doesn’t operate like a sheriff riding into town promising to clean up the saloons. It has developed a big-picture look at federal operations and identified leading practices that federal agencies can pick up. Like any oversight body, federal agencies don’t always like what they hear and often squawk. But there’s no question that we—and even they—are a whole lot better off for GAO’s work. 

GAO is relatively little known outside government. Even less well known is the fact that it’s an agency that works for Congress. That often is a thorn in the side of the administration, regardless of who’s in power, because GAO often says things the administration would rather not hear. That’s especially been the case in recent months with GAO’s findings that the administration has violated the law in impounding federal money—refusing to spend money that Congress appropriated. This was at the root of Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought’s statement that GAO “shouldn’t exist”.  The OMB Director doesn’t want anyone looking over their shoulder, just as  students don’t like to take home report cards that aren’t straight-A’s or spend their time in detention.

But now that we’re closing in on the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and celebrating the Constitution that the founders crafted to govern us, we need to strengthen the balance-of-powers model that Madison and the other founders left us. They deliberately chose not to give us an easy system to use in governing ourselves. That means the three branches of government are always going to be jousting with each other—and that’s how it should be.

In the growing complexity of our society, we need governmental institutions that can keep up with that complexity. That means Congress, in turn, needs muscle to do the heavy lifting required to oversee the executive branch, whether it’s a Republican or Democratic Congress, or a Republican or Democratic President. That’s what Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and the other founders had in mind. 

And that’s why the next month is so important. The current head of GAO, Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, will be at the end of his fifteen-year term, the longest term in the federal government except for the lifetime appointment of federal judges, and the process to name a successor will shift into high gear. A special commission—consisting of congressional leaders—recommends a slate of individuals to the president. The president selects one person to nominate, and the Senate must then confirm the new head.

This appointment is a pretty big deal. It will ensure strong oversight through the 2030s into the 2040s and reinforce the balance of powers for even longer. GAO will provide the executive branch with the independent insights it needs to wring out waste, fraud and abuse. It is a tool that Congress can use to hold the executive branch accountable, essential because a weak GAO weakens the legislative branch. We all have a stake in making sure that GAO can provide the oversight the Constitution requires—and the balance of powers that they designed.

Philip G. Joyce is professor of Public Policy and Donald F. Kettl is Professor Emeritus, both at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. They have been working with colleagues on Reform for Results, a nonpartisan coalition of public policy experts dedicated to advancing the government’s mission within the American tradition of the rule of law.