I can only encourage fellow Americans to consult with international media. It can be quite informative, I find, to get a foreign perspective on American affairs.
I started reading The Guardian around 2006 or so, BBC News occasionally but it feels more like clickbait titles these days... The Guardian is not totally "international media" since I think they have lots of US staff and contributors, but its removed enough in my opinion, and I appreciate the criticism of the US as an American. Lots of quality content in lots of areas. I think lots of fellow Americans would find it very palatable too.
Occam's razor... The number of things that need to go right for there to be organized and/or systemic fraud, and nobody to be able to come out, let alone provide credible evidence for it is enormous.
Yeah, you know all that oversight and red tape they hate so much and just threw out? All those inspector generals? Their whole purpose was to make sure the government follows the law. It was quite effective.
The mistake some fools have made is to take what Trump, Musk, and Republicans say in good faith. When they say they are going to get rid of fraud, what they really mean is they are going to commit it.
Was the goal ever 'fraud', and not simply funding for things voters/Trump/Musk either disapprove of, or think is wasteful? Such as animal transgender studies [1], DEI departments [2], and yes, a whole lot of uncontroversially useful programs. There are very valid criticisms to be made against DOGE (and have been made), but the article is attacking a strawman.
And the article is correct on the fraud part (I assume), but then conflates this with overall waste, which, judging from DOGE's name, is its main goal. Though it does claim it found zero waste [1], 'waste' is highly subjective - e.g. to some, DEI departments and transgender activism in Guatemala is waste [2]. Simply deciding that all of these programs are crucial and therefore no waste was found, is not honest journalism.
[1] not a single instance of fraud or waste has been discovered
Then the article does a great job of debunking that one specific statement by Trump, but not a good job of debunking the entire DOGE department. And I don't particularly care about Trump's random statements.
I wonder if the general public perceives DOGE as being an effort to root out corruption because that's the only thing the President mentions about. But hey! You don't care!!
Also, what's "random" about the statement? It seems pretty specific and relevant to me. I think random would be if he started talking about Rosie O'Donnel again for no explicable reason.
