Musk’s Final Days at DOGE: The Five Most Shocking Examples of Government Waste That Will Make Your Blood Boil
As billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk prepares to step down from his controversial role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), he’s leaving behind a trail of explosive revelations about federal spending that have sent shockwaves through Washington. In an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Jesse Watters, Musk and his team unveiled what they’re calling the “five most outrageous” examples of government waste discovered during their brief but tumultuous tenure.
With his mandatory departure date of May 30 approaching—a limit imposed by federal ethics rules restricting “special government employees” to 130 days of service per year—Musk appears determined to ensure his findings don’t quietly disappear into the bureaucratic abyss. The revelations, ranging from taxpayer-funded Taliban payments to school districts partying in Las Vegas on COVID relief funds, paint a picture of federal spending so absurd it would be comedic if it weren’t costing Americans billions.
“We’re not just talking about typical government inefficiency here,” Musk told Watters. “We’re talking about your tax dollars literally funding our enemies, paying for school administrators to party in Vegas, and creating ‘Sesame Street’ in Iraq while American kids can’t read at grade level. This isn’t waste—it’s insanity.”
The Taliban Connection: When “Peace” Means Funding Former Enemies
Perhaps the most jaw-dropping discovery made by DOGE investigators involves the United States Institute of Peace (USIP)—an agency whose very name now drips with irony. According to documents uncovered by Musk’s team, this supposedly peace-promoting organization paid $132,000 to Mohammad Qasem Halimi, a former Taliban member who had previously been detained by U.S. forces at Bagram Air Base.
The story of Halimi reads like a dark satire of American foreign policy. After being captured and held for a year starting January 2, 2002, at the notorious Bagram detention facility, Halimi was released and somehow managed to climb the ranks of the Afghan government. By 2020, he had been appointed Minister of Hajj and Religious Affairs—a position that apparently qualified him for a lucrative consulting contract with an American “peace” institute.
“Let me get this straight,” one DOGE investigator remarked during the team’s presentation to Congress. “We captured this guy as an enemy combatant, held him at Bagram, then years later we’re cutting him six-figure checks from an agency dedicated to ‘peace’? You can’t make this stuff up.”
But the absurdity didn’t end with the Taliban payment. When DOGE investigators visited USIP headquarters for what they assumed would be a routine audit, they made another startling discovery: loaded firearms inside the offices of the United States Institute of Peace.
“So by far, the least peaceful agency that we’ve worked with, ironically,” a DOGE staffer told Watters, barely containing their disbelief. “We actually went into the agency and found they had loaded guns inside their headquarters—Institute for Peace.”
The investigation also revealed that USIP officials were using taxpayer funds for private jet travel—a discovery that prompted one DOGE auditor to quip, “I guess when you’re busy funding the Taliban, commercial flights just won’t do.”
Following DOGE’s exposé, the contract with Halimi was hastily canceled on March 31, but questions remain about how many other questionable payments might be hidden in the agency’s books.
Vegas Baby: School Districts Turn COVID Relief into Party Funds
While Americans were struggling with pandemic lockdowns, job losses, and remote learning challenges, some school administrators apparently decided that COVID relief funds were the perfect opportunity for a taxpayer-funded vacation. DOGE auditors uncovered a pattern of educational institutions misusing $200 billion in pandemic relief funds “with little oversight or impact on students.”
The most egregious example comes from Utah’s Granite School District, which spent $86,000 of COVID relief money on hotel rooms at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas for what they claimed was an “educational conference.” When pressed for details about what educational value was derived from staying at a luxury casino resort, district officials offered only vague assurances that all expenditures were “appropriate.”
“These administrators are literally gambling with our children’s future,” one DOGE investigator noted. “While kids were falling behind in reading and math, these officials were living it up in Vegas on the taxpayer’s dime.”
But Utah wasn’t alone in its creative interpretation of “COVID relief.” California’s Santa Ana Unified School District managed to spend $393,000 to rent a Major League Baseball stadium—presumably because nothing helps students recover from pandemic learning loss quite like watching America’s pastime from premium seats.
Other discoveries included:
- $60,000 spent on swimming pool passes (because apparently, swimming prevents COVID transmission)
- A California district that purchased an ice cream truck with relief funds (for “student morale,” officials claimed)
- Luxury hotel stays that continued long after pandemic restrictions had been lifted
A report from Parents Defending Education, which DOGE officials shared with Congress, documented these and dozens of other examples of schools treating COVID relief funds as a “slush fund for pet projects and personal perks.”
When Granite School District was confronted about their Las Vegas expenditures, officials insisted there was “no impropriety” in sending educators to stay at a casino resort. They failed to explain why an educational conference couldn’t have been held at a more modest venue—or why it needed to be held in Las Vegas at all.
Sesame Street Goes to Baghdad: Your Tax Dollars at Work
In what might be the most surreal example of government waste, DOGE discovered that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had authorized $20 million to create an Iraqi version of Sesame Street. The project, officially titled “Ahlan Simsim Iraq” (which roughly translates to “Welcome Sesame Iraq”), was ostensibly designed to “promote inclusion, mutual respect and understanding across ethnic, religious and sectarian groups.”
Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), chair of the Senate DOGE Caucus who has been working closely with Musk, couldn’t hide her incredulity when discussing the project. “We’re borrowing money from China to create Sesame Street in Iraq,” she told reporters. “Meanwhile, American children are falling behind in basic literacy and math. Someone needs to explain to me why Big Bird is more important in Baghdad than in Baltimore.”
The project was managed by Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit behind the original Sesame Street, which received the massive grant during the Biden administration. According to USAID documents, the show was intended to help Iraqi children deal with trauma and promote social cohesion in a country still recovering from years of conflict.
While the goals might sound noble, DOGE investigators questioned why American taxpayers should foot the bill for children’s television in foreign countries when domestic educational needs remain unmet. “We have schools in Detroit where kids don’t have textbooks,” one DOGE official noted. “But somehow we found $20 million to teach Iraqi kids the alphabet with puppets?”
The controversy deepened when investigators discovered that this wasn’t even the first time American taxpayers had funded international versions of Sesame Street. Previous administrations had approved similar projects in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and other countries, often with minimal oversight of how the funds were actually used.
The $162 Billion Question: When “Improper” Becomes “Insane”
Perhaps the most staggering revelation from DOGE’s investigation came from a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report showing that federal agencies made $162 billion in “improper payments” in a single fiscal year. While this figure was actually $74 billion lower than the previous year—a fact that government officials seemed to think deserved celebration—DOGE investigators were less impressed.
“Let me get this straight,” Musk reportedly said during a staff meeting. “They want credit because they only wasted $162 billion instead of $236 billion? In what universe is losing $162 billion something to brag about?”
The GAO’s analysis revealed that 75% of these improper payments were concentrated in just five programs:
- Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Medicare/Medicaid
- Treasury Department programs
- Department of Agriculture
- Small Business Administration
What’s particularly troubling is that these aren’t small, obscure programs—they’re some of the federal government’s largest and most important initiatives. The fact that they’re hemorrhaging billions in improper payments raises serious questions about oversight and accountability.
The types of improper payments varied widely:
- Payments to deceased individuals
- Duplicate payments for the same service
- Payments to ineligible recipients
- Overpayments due to calculation errors
- Fraudulent claims that went undetected
“This isn’t just about waste,” a DOGE investigator explained. “This is about a fundamental breakdown in basic government competence. We’re not talking about complex policy decisions here—we’re talking about the government’s inability to perform simple tasks like checking if someone is alive before sending them a check.”
When confronted with these figures, agency officials typically responded with promises to “strengthen internal controls” and “enhance oversight procedures”—bureaucratic doublespeak that DOGE investigators had heard countless times before.
DEI Spending: Hundreds of Millions for Diversity Consultants
One of DOGE’s most politically charged discoveries involved the massive sums being spent on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies. While President Trump had campaigned on dramatically reducing such spending, even his transition team was reportedly shocked by the scale of expenditures uncovered by DOGE investigators.
In recent months, DOGE announced cuts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars from DEI contracts, many of which were awarded to consulting firms with questionable credentials and even more questionable results.
Examples of problematic DEI spending included:
- A $3 million contract to teach “inclusive breathing techniques”
- $1.2 million for a seminar on “decolonizing mathematics”
- $750,000 for workshops on “interrupting whiteness in federal spaces”
- $2.5 million for diversity consultants who had never actually conducted any training
- Multiple contracts awarded to firms owned by relatives of federal employees
“This isn’t about diversity or inclusion,” one DOGE official stated. “This is about creating a cottage industry of consultants who get rich by telling government employees they’re racist. It’s a protection racket masquerading as social justice.”
The investigation revealed that many agencies were spending more on DEI programs than on their core missions. For instance, one small federal agency with an annual budget of $50 million was spending $5 million on diversity consulting—10% of its entire budget.
When questioned about the effectiveness of these programs, agency officials typically couldn’t provide any measurable outcomes or improvements. “We’d ask them what they got for their millions, and they’d give us word salad about ‘fostering inclusive environments’ and ‘centering marginalized voices,'” reported one DOGE investigator. “But when we asked for actual metrics—like, did this improve employee satisfaction? Did it increase productivity? Did it reduce discrimination complaints?—they had nothing.”
The Musk Effect: A New Era of Government Accountability?
As Musk prepares to step down from his role at DOGE, his impact on government transparency has been undeniable. In just a few months, his team has exposed billions in wasteful spending, questionable contracts, and outright fraud that had previously gone unnoticed—or deliberately ignored.
The creation of DOGE itself was controversial, with critics arguing it was an unnecessary addition to existing oversight bodies like the GAO and various inspectors general. But supporters counter that Musk’s outsider perspective and business acumen brought fresh eyes to problems that career bureaucrats had learned to overlook.
“The difference is that we’re not part of the system,” Musk explained. “We don’t have relationships with these agencies. We don’t care about stepping on toes. We just see waste and call it what it is.”
His approach has certainly ruffled feathers in Washington. Career bureaucrats complained about DOGE’s aggressive tactics and public shaming of wasteful agencies. Some members of Congress—even Republicans—privately grumbled that Musk’s team was “too confrontational.”
But the results speak for themselves. In addition to the specific examples of waste exposed, DOGE’s mere existence has reportedly led to numerous agencies voluntarily cutting questionable programs before they could be investigated.
The Road Ahead: Can the Momentum Continue?
With Musk’s departure mandated by federal ethics rules, questions remain about DOGE’s future effectiveness. The 130-day limit on special government employees was designed to prevent conflicts of interest, but in this case, it may be cutting short a much-needed cleanup operation.
“We’ve barely scratched the surface,” one DOGE staffer lamented. “For every ridiculous example of waste we’ve found, there are probably hundreds more we haven’t had time to investigate.”
Musk has indicated that he’s already begun scaling back his hours at the agency, focusing on documenting findings and establishing procedures that can continue after his departure. The question now is whether DOGE can maintain its effectiveness without its high-profile leader.
There are also concerns about potential backlash from the bureaucracy. “The swamp has a way of protecting itself,” warned one government reform advocate. “Once Musk is gone, watch how quickly these agencies try to reinstate their pet projects under different names.”
The $2 Trillion Question
When President Trump created DOGE on Inauguration Day, the agency set an ambitious target of trimming $2 trillion from the federal budget. Critics scoffed at this figure, calling it unrealistic and politically impossible.
But as Musk’s team continued to uncover example after example of waste, fraud, and abuse, that target began to seem less far-fetched. If the government is losing $162 billion annually just to “improper payments,” and if relatively small agencies like USIP can somehow find money to pay former Taliban members, how much waste might be hidden in the entire federal budget?
“We’re not talking about cutting essential services,” Musk emphasized. “We’re talking about stopping the hemorrhaging of taxpayer money on things that would get any private sector CEO fired.”
The challenge, of course, is that unlike a private company, the federal government operates in a political environment where every dollar spent has a constituency defending it. Even the most obviously wasteful programs have their champions in Congress, their lobbyists on K Street, and their beneficiaries who will fight to keep the money flowing.
Lessons from the Front Lines
As DOGE’s investigations wind down, several clear lessons have emerged about government waste:
- Nobody’s Watching the Store: Many of the most egregious examples of waste weren’t hidden—they were happening in plain sight. The problem wasn’t secrecy; it was that nobody was looking.
- Good Intentions, Terrible Execution: Programs like Sesame Street in Iraq or COVID relief for schools started with legitimate goals but morphed into slush funds due to lack of oversight.
- The Bureaucracy Protects Itself: Agencies become skilled at justifying their own existence and expanding their budgets, regardless of whether they’re actually accomplishing their missions.
- Small Numbers Add Up: While everyone focuses on big-ticket items like defense spending, billions are wasted through thousands of smaller programs that fly under the radar.
- Accountability Is Optional: In the private sector, wasting $162 billion would lead to bankruptcy. In government, it’s just another fiscal year.
The Opposition Fights Back
Not everyone is pleased with DOGE’s discoveries. Critics argue that Musk’s team has cherry-picked extreme examples while ignoring the valuable work many government programs perform. Some Democrats have accused DOGE of being a “partisan hit squad” designed to justify ideological cuts to social programs.
“They’re using a few bad examples to tar the entire federal workforce,” complained one Democratic congressman. “Yes, there’s waste in government, but there’s also waste in private industry. The difference is that government waste is public, while corporate waste is hidden.”
Defenders of programs like USIP argue that soft power initiatives, including cultural exchanges and peace-building efforts, are crucial to American foreign policy even if they occasionally produce questionable expenditures.
“You can’t measure the value of peace programs in dollars and cents,” argued a former State Department official. “Yes, the Halimi contract was a mistake, but USIP has done valuable work in conflict zones around the world.”
Even some Republicans worry that DOGE’s aggressive approach could backfire, making it harder to achieve realistic reforms. “We need to fix government waste, but we also need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater,” cautioned one GOP senator.
The Media Reaction
The mainstream media’s response to DOGE’s findings has been mixed. While some outlets have highlighted the obvious examples of waste, others have focused on criticizing Musk’s methods or questioning his motives.
Several major newspapers ran editorials arguing that while government waste is a real problem, having a billionaire with multiple government contracts oversee the investigation creates its own conflicts of interest.
“Elon Musk’s companies receive billions in government contracts and subsidies,” wrote one editorial board. “Is he really the right person to be auditing government spending?”
Supporters counter that Musk’s business experience is exactly what’s needed to identify inefficiency. “Who better to spot waste than someone who’s actually had to meet a payroll?” argued one conservative commentator.
The Trump Factor
President Trump has enthusiastically promoted DOGE’s findings, using them to justify his broader deregulation agenda. At recent rallies, he’s been highlighting the most egregious examples of waste discovered by Musk’s team.
“Can you believe it? They were paying the Taliban!” Trump told crowds. “They were sending your tax dollars to people who were shooting at our soldiers. Only in Washington could this happen.”
The President has also used DOGE’s findings to attack the “deep state,” arguing that career bureaucrats have been protecting wasteful programs for decades. “They knew about all this waste, folks. They knew, and they did nothing. That’s why we needed an outsider like Elon to come in and clean house.”
Democrats counter that Trump is using DOGE’s findings to justify cuts to programs he ideologically opposes, regardless of their actual effectiveness.
Looking Forward: The Post-Musk DOGE
As Musk’s tenure at DOGE comes to an end, speculation is rampant about who might replace him. Some names being floated include other business leaders, former military officials, and even some reform-minded Democrats.
The challenge for any successor will be maintaining DOGE’s momentum without Musk’s star power. The billionaire’s celebrity status and social media following have helped bring attention to government waste in a way that traditional watchdog organizations rarely achieve.
There’s also the question of whether DOGE will survive beyond the Trump administration. While the agency was created by executive order, its long-term future likely depends on congressional authorization and funding.
“The real test will be whether these reforms stick,” observed one government reform expert. “We’ve seen these efforts before. There’s a lot of fanfare, some obvious waste gets cut, and then everything slowly goes back to normal.”
The Big Picture: Can Government Be Run Like a Business?
DOGE’s brief but eventful existence has reignited an old debate: Can government be run like a business? Musk’s approach—direct, data-driven, intolerant of inefficiency—is straight out of the Silicon Valley playbook. But critics argue that government serves purposes beyond efficiency.
“Government isn’t a business,” argues one public administration professor. “Its job isn’t to make a profit. Sometimes inefficiency is the price we pay for democracy, due process, and serving everyone, not just the profitable customers.”
Supporters counter that basic competence shouldn’t be too much to ask, regardless of an organization’s mission. “We’re not asking government to make a profit,” says one DOGE official. “We’re asking it to stop lighting money on fire.”
The Bottom Line
As Elon Musk prepares to leave DOGE, his legacy is already clear: He’s pulled back the curtain on government waste in a way that’s both entertaining and horrifying. From funding ex-Taliban members to sending school administrators to Vegas on pandemic relief funds, the examples of waste uncovered by DOGE read like satire but represent a deadly serious problem.
The $162 billion in improper payments alone represents more than $1,000 for every American household. Add in the countless smaller examples of waste, fraud, and abuse, and it’s clear that Musk’s team has only scratched the surface of a much deeper problem.
Whether DOGE’s efforts will lead to lasting reform or simply provide temporary embarrassment for wasteful agencies remains to be seen. But for a brief moment, an eccentric billionaire with a federal badge has forced Washington to confront some uncomfortable truths about how it spends taxpayer money.
As Musk himself noted in his final press conference: “The question isn’t whether we can afford to cut government waste. The question is whether we can afford not to.”
With the national debt approaching $40 trillion and deficit spending seemingly without limit, it’s a question that demands an answer—whether Washington wants to provide one or not.
