The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has wasted no time exposing staggering inefficiencies in federal spending, uncovering potential waste, fraud, and untraceable U.S. Treasury payments ranging from $50 billion to an astonishing $4.7 trillion within weeks of its inception.

By contrast, the federal Inspector General (IG) community, with a $3.1 billion budget in FY23, identified $93 billion in potential savings—$26.6 billion from investigations alone—according to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).

The disparity is glaring.

If DOGE can reveal such massive discrepancies so quickly, why haven’t the inspector generals flagged these issues sooner with decades of experience and a robust framework?

Established under the Inspector General Act of 1978, the IG system oversees accountability across federal agencies. With 74 statutory IGs and approximately 10,000 to 15,000 staff—auditors, investigators, inspectors, and more—these offices were designed to root out waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting taxpayer dollars.

Yet DOGE’s rapid findings have exposed cracks in this system, casting doubt on the IGs’ effectiveness despite their longevity and resources.

The IG system’s failure to prioritize whistleblower protection is a key flaw.

The 1978 Act does not mandate reprisal investigations, allocate resources, or require basic reporting on whistleblower retaliation.

Instead, it emphasizes financial recoveries — such as “investigative receivables” — leaving little focus on reprisal cases. This is a critical oversight. Whistleblowers are essential to uncovering waste and fraud, but without strong protections, they remain vulnerable, reducing the flow of vital tips.

IG Semi-Annual Reports (SARs) tout savings but omit key reprisal metrics: allegations received, cases investigated, and outcomes. Substantiating reprisals often involves financial liabilities — like back pay or damages under the Back Pay Act — impacting agency budgets.

Under the No FEAR Act, these costs are reimbursed to the Treasury’s Judgment Fund, creating a perverse incentive: agencies and IGs avoid validating reprisal claims to sidestep accountability. As a result, agencies hesitate to confirm reprisals, and IG investigators prioritize straightforward waste and fraud cases over resource-intensive reprisal probes.

IG officers have voiced concerns about these complex investigations, which divert manpower from cases easily highlighted in SARs.

The IG Act outlines three primary goals: auditing agency operations, improving efficiency while combating fraud, and informing Congress.

Whistleblower retaliation, however, gets scant attention.

Section 7(C) prohibits retaliation against those reporting to IGs but lacks enforcement mechanisms or funding mandates. CIGIE’s annual reports underscore this gap, focusing on financial wins while ignoring reprisal data.

Reprisal investigations are time-consuming and complex, clashing with the faster payoffs of waste and fraud cases. IGs often opt for “low-hanging fruit” — like Time and Attendance fraud — that yield quick results and target individual bad actors rather than systemic issues that might embarrass an agency.

Validating reprisals can saddle agencies with significant costs, such as reinstatement, legal fees, or settlements, further discouraging IGs from pursuing them. This skews priorities toward savings over accountability, sidelining whistleblowers who could expose the most profound problems.

The solution is straightforward: DOGE should audit and reform IG operations. Start by mandating reprisal investigations and dedicating resources to them.

Revise SAR requirements to include detailed metrics—reprisal allegations filed, timelines from reporting to resolution, investigative actions, and case outcomes—so Congress can track progress.

Without these changes, whistleblower protections remain fragile, undermining the transparency and efficiency IGs were created to ensure.

DOGE’s early success shows what’s possible. It’s time to hold IGs to the same standard—taxpayers deserve no less.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.