Interview Questions for Journalists

Bret Baier's disastrous interview with Elon Musk revealed a complete lack of appreciation for basic principles of accounting and auditing, which are central to understanding DOGE's failings.  To this end, we would like to propose journalists ask the following questions of DOGE.  We believe these questions will shine a light on the failings of DOGE, and leave Elon Musk at a loss for words. 

• Since day one, you have repeatedly referenced waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.  Please define these terms as you understand them: waste, fraud, and abuse.  These terms get used loosely, and I would like to know how you define them.  What documentation is required to prove the existence of waste, fraud, and abuse?  
• DOGE frequently suggests they are conducting an audit of the federal government. The primary function of an audit is to reconcile and confirm data.  Given DOGE's missteps, it appears you are evaluating programs and services at face value, with a limited understanding of the data.  What steps have you taken to reconcile and confirm data before drawing conclusions?  Please provide at least three examples illustrating a thorough reconciliation process.  
• Let's examine a few specific assertions made by DOGE which suggest an inadequate reconciliation process.  You have repeatedly suggested the Social Security database contains a large number of individuals in excess of 120 years of age, implying these individuals are receiving Social Security payments.  Have you reconciled information in the Social Security database to Treasury Department payments?  Do you have proof individuals listed as in excess of 120 years of age are in fact receiving Social Security checks?  If so, why are we not seeing indictments and arrests based on this data?
• You have expressed dismay that the Treasury Department pay system does not include coding for individual payments.  I'm not sure you understand accounting practices.  Why would the Treasury Department need to approve payments if they have been approved at the agency level?  Isn't the primary function of the Treasury Department to disburse funds, not to approve funds?  You have repeatedly mentioned that payments are requested without coding, but I believe the government is under the accrual basis of accounting (expenses are recorded when incurred not when paid).  As a result, these invoices would have been coded and approved prior to the payment process at the Treasury Department.  Isn't this true?
• You advocated to cap indirect costs for federal grants at 15%.  Please define direct and indirect costs. You falsely suggested any percent above 15% would instead go directly to the grant, but how are indirect and direct costs related?  Direct costs do not change, regardless of adjustments to indirect costs. Do you have a thorough understanding of scientific research?  Don't you agree an institution could have overhead costs in excess of 15%, particularly if the research involves shared highly technical equipment and/or facilities that the institution must maintain?  
• Staying on the topic of scientific research, do you have a team of scientific experts to evaluate individual grants, or are you relying on a layman's understanding of complex scientific concepts?
• Are you evaluating programs/grants on the basis of the title, or are you taking the time to read the entire programs/grants to ensure you understand the implications of eliminating these government services?  For example, are you eliminating a grant based on the presence of certain words, using AI or a macro, rather than thoroughly reading the grant?
• DOGE advocated for large scale terminations of probationary employees.  If you are committed to reducing the size of the federal workforce without regard for the impact on programs and services, it makes sense you would fire probationary employees because they are much easier to terminate.  Rather than acknowledging this fact, you sent probationary employees letters falsely suggesting their performance was poor, when in fact many of these employees had a history of favorable performance reviews.  Why did these termination letters make these false assertions?  What are the consequences for these employees in their future job search, given you have labeled them poor performers?  Do you care about their future success, or is DOGE uninterested in the unemployment rate in America?
• What percentage of the total federal budget is represented by the agencies you have reduced in size, scope, services, and/or programming?  Is it possible to reduce the federal budget by the amount you have asserted, or will you have to cut entitlements to achieve your objectives?
• Is DOGE an honest and accountable organization?  Do you bear any responsibility for assertions made without adequate documentation?  Do you have the expertise necessary to undertake this task?