On the day he was inaugurated to a second term, President Trump signed an executive order creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and in its first two months, it has emerged as a quick-acting agency ready to slash what the president and DOGE leader, billionaire Elon Musk, see as wasteful spending.

However, critics of the administration say DOGE action so far is less about cutting government waste and more about executing Trump’s agenda. Already, several DOGE cuts have sparked lawsuits, injunctions, and rulings blocking the agency’s actions.

There is little argument that waste and inefficiency exist in an operation as large as the U.S. federal government. The challenge is figuring out how best to identify and address it. There is a thing or two DOGE could learn from internal auditors in meeting that challenge.

I spent the bulk of my early career in service of the U.S. federal government and have seen many examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. As the U.S. Army’s Chief of Internal Review, Deputy Inspector General for the U.S. Postal Service, and later as Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority, I oversaw hundreds of audits that rooted out inefficiency and waste. I also served as part of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government in the mid-1990s. The Reinventing Government project led to the elimination of more than 100 programs, 250,000 federal jobs, the consolidation of more than 800 agencies, and the transfer of institutional knowledge to contractors.

What made the Reinventing Government project successful 30 years ago was its systematic approach to identifying waste and inefficiency. In that sense, it relied on fundamental methodologies such as those used by internal auditors and those in the federal IG community, and DOGE would be smart to do the same today.

I do not question the motives of those executing the DOGE mission, but I fear their approaches are creating skepticism and fatigue that will ultimately limit their effectiveness. Here are five lessons DOGE could learn from internal auditors:

Follow the Risks.

This is basic advice I’ve been dispensing to internal auditors for decades. Risk-based auditing is bedrock to modern internal auditing, and missing high-risk areas is an invitation to disaster. I also have said internal auditors can audit anything but not everything. That further strengthens the argument for setting audit priorities based on risk. If we miss the high-risk areas, it won’t matter what we could have audited.

In the DOGE context, the biggest “bangs” will likely come from the biggest budgets. Yet, most of the DOGE fanfare has centered on smaller agencies (such as the U.S. Agency for International Development) where drastic cuts are not likely to generate the significant reductions in government spending that have been promised. The agencies with the federal government’s three largest budgets, Social Security, Medicare, and Defense likely present the larger risks when it comes to waste and inefficiency. Granted these are often considered third-rail areas best left alone, but that doesn’t seem to be a deterrence to those calling the shots on downsizing government?

Solicit and Respond to Feedback From Key Stakeholders

Buy-in from stakeholders is critical to internal audit success. Happily, the days when internal audit was viewed as the enemy and not a strategic partner are largely gone. That evolution required internal auditors to abandon the “gotcha” mentality and start listening to stakeholders, understanding and buying into organizational strategies, and being transparent.

DOGE should be guided by loyalty not just to the president, but to Congress and the American public, as well. Before “going after” any area of suspected waste, it should take time to learn, listen, and be responsive.

Deploy Systematic, Disciplined, and Transparent Methodologies

One of the principal criticisms of DOGE actions to date is that funding cuts, efforts to block allocations, and attempts to access sensitive personnel data have come with little or no public fact-finding.

Musk has brought in teams of talented technology experts skilled at extracting data. However, they may not fully understand what the data means, and rash action without full comprehension is simply dangerous. Adopting systematic approaches and methodologies helps guard against conscious and subconscious bias that can creep into data interpretation. Transparency helps build credibility and trust with stakeholders.

Design and Implement Quality Controls to Ensure Accuracy and Credibility

Creating controls that support accuracy in data collection, interpretation, and decision-making help build trust and credibility. Much of the early pushback against DOGE is the result of what appears to be hasty or capricious decisions by agency leaders. Without establishing credibility, DOGE will be vulnerable to continued criticism and over time its findings could ultimately be seen as noise.

Get the Facts Straight Before Issuing Reports or Going Public

Transparency is essential to trust, which makes accuracy essential to everything DOGE does. Pushing out information that later turns out to be inaccurate erodes credibility and weakens the DOGE mandate. As Reuters recently observed, in “two weeks alone, DOGE has deleted hundreds of claimed savings, including some of the largest items it had previously boasted about.”

Inaccurate claims that are subsequently retracted leaves DOGE vulnerable to questions about its intent. DOGE teams should routinely be sitting down with staff and others who understand the inner workings of any agency they examine before reaching public conclusions.

In addition to those five things, I would encourage DOGE to:

Demonstrate Empathy

This relates to my earlier observations about losing the “gotcha” mentality. One of the early lessons from my five-decade career in internal auditing is understanding that waste and inefficiency are rarely deliberate. Government employees are mostly dedicated, hard-working individuals often motivated by public service. While funding cuts and job eliminations are inevitable in any serious effort to reduce waste and inefficiency, DOGE teams should always remember their recommendations and actions impact individuals, their families, and their communities.

I spent too long in government not to appreciate the challenge of what I call “auditing in the theatre of politics.” As President Lincoln said: “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” That is particularly true of those whose role is to hold government accountable. Efforts to curb waste and inefficiency often step on the toes of bureaucrats and politicians. DOGE officials are learning that all too well. However, they would do well to avoid self-inflicted wounds and learn from internal auditors.

I welcome your thoughts on this important topic.