Preventing fraud does not require allowing a 19 year old alleged cybercriminal have broad access to government systems.

There are more systematic, less disruptive ways to accomplish these goals.

Or, to put it a bit of hyperbole around it... "Burn it to the ground!" is rarely the best approach to changing a system that is largely working as intended.

I think there may be a false dichotomy in some people’s minds between a new emphasis on detecting fraud, and existing emphasis on maintaining the security of sensitive data and mission-critical systems.

This article shows at least some evidence that Treasury is actually trying to do both. And that existing security professionals have been involved in the process.

It's more nuanced than "let DOGE in and review that"

> Gioeli [told the court], however, that Elez may have "occasionally" taken screen shots of payment system data or records to share with a second DOGE employee working with him at Treasury

The problem is that there are legal definitions for fraud, but Trump and Musk are very prone to calling any spending they don't personally agree with "fraud".

The rule of law is important. This is not rule of law.

I don't question the need for an audit. I do question having a ketamine fueled oligarch and a rag-tag group of 20 year old software developers doing an audit, pretending audits take days, and somehow only finding things conservatives hate as waste/fraud.

But government agencies ARE audited!

Totally, the departmental audits happen yearly and are available to the public. It doesn't bother me if they want to do a separate audit but these aren't audits, aren't being performed by auditors, and are clearly just a partisan attack on our institutions.