GAO

  • |

    Canceling the Conveyor Belt After the Invoice Prints

    ByPhil McCracken

    ICE is “ending” the WEXMAC-style contracting approach, which is a lovely PR hobby—right up until you remember the whole point of an invoice is that it arrives whether you keep the vehicle or ditch it.

    I’m Phil McCracken, Capitol Hill corruption reporter, and I have watched this specific conga line before: use a DoD ordering vehicle to speed-run procurement, let the paperwork conveyor belt clatter forward, and then—once the problems get loud—declare the route “over” like that rewinds the receipts.

    Here’s the contradiction the public can’t unsee. ICE officials, including Mullin, say the WEXMAC approach is being ended. But GAO reported planning/acquisition problems tied to the Camp East Montana contract process, and waste connected to paying for services based on maximum capacity even when detainees weren’t present—i.e., taxpayers got charged for capacity math that didn’t match reality.

    And then the “fix” arrives the way a fire alarm arrives: after the kitchen is already featured in the news. The record described ICE terminating the initial contract and moving to a new operator. Operationally, sure. Accountability-wise? That’s not the same thing as undoing the billing logic GAO flagged.

    You can cancel the conveyor belt. You can’t cancel the meal tickets once the printing starts.

  • |

    The Watchdogs Forgot the Forms, Again

    ByHugh Jass

    I’m Hugh Jass, Serious Investigative Reporter With Absurd Gravitas, and Exhibit A had a pulse: I assumed the federal watchdog that’s supposed to police OIG misconduct investigations would, at minimum, follow its own legally required process. Then GAO opened the folder and the compliance paperwork blinked first—because the Integrity Committee (the panel that reviews complaints about senior OIG personnel) can’t consistently hit timeframes, document everything it’s required to document, or reliably complete the review work inside the statute’s clock.

    GAO-26-107922, publicly released June 15, 2026, is specific about what broke. In the matters GAO reviewed, GAO estimated that only 24% met all time-frame requirements, while 76% missed at least one timeline requirement. And in GAO’s reviewed sample, none of five investigations were completed within the 150-day legal time frame. That’s not a “rare bad day” story—that’s a pattern where the system designed for consistent, timely misconduct review keeps missing the deliverable it sells to the public.

    Because deadlines aren’t the only deliverable, GAO also found documentation problems. The report describes required materials that were missing or insufficient, plus limited oversight related to assisting OIGs’ compliance. Put differently: even when the Integrity Committee is the “watchdog for watchdogs,” it still depends on other pieces of process staying properly assembled—and GAO found the assembly line for evidence, records, and review discipline was sometimes running without the full paperwork.

    So what does the government’s promised improvement look like when the problem is paperwork physics? GAO’s recommendations focus on strengthening secondary reviews, improving required reporting, and improving reimbursement documentation. Which is official-language for the thing my filing cabinet says every time it exhales: you don’t fix a haunted stapler by removing the stapling—apparently you fix it by stapling more carefully, with extra checklists, and a more detailed receipt trail for the stapler you already lost control of.

    In other words, the watchdog unit can’t reliably meet its own legally required timelines and documentation, and the response effectively treats “more compliance” as the remedy for compliance failure. That’s the only truly consistent finding here—records-room thunder, footnotes with luggage, and the same conclusion you get when you ask a compliance system to audit itself: when the watchdog drops the basics, the fix is never fewer forms. It’s more forms, more process, and the same haunted subscription plan.

  • |

    The Pentagon Audit Diet Starts Monday

    ByHugh Jass

    The Pentagon’s revised audit plan has arrived wearing the cologne of modernization: centralized coordination, technology, future tools, and the faint electrical hum of someone saying “AI” near a filing cabinet. But in GAO-26-109115, published May 13, 2026, the Government Accountability Office keeps tugging the conversation back to the ancient ritual of auditability: can the Department of Defense produce reliable financial information, fix known weaknesses, and prove the balances are not just numbers enjoying a government job?

    This is the part where the document coughed. A bigger plan may organize the fog, but organization is not accountability if the underlying records still cannot stand up straight under fluorescent lighting. Taxpayers do not need a smarter drawer so much as receipts that can survive daylight. The haunted receipt drawer has not been cleaned out; it has been promoted, centralized, polished, and assigned a robot intern.

  • |

    The Improper Payments ATM Is Still Open

    ByMike Rotch

    Washington keeps promising to hunt waste like it just discovered a flashlight, and then GAO walks in saying federal agencies estimated $186 billion in improper payments for fiscal year 2025. Not fraud, necessarily — put the pitchfork down, cable-news foam machine — but overpayments, underpayments, missing paperwork, payments that should not have gone out, and other bureaucratic classics from the album Who Authorized This?

    That is the contradiction with teeth: the same capital city that sells fiscal discipline by the pound still has payment controls leaky enough to embarrass a garden hose. Every agency can hold a stern little podium festival about waste, fraud, and abuse, but the receipt printer is screaming in the basement. This is not a partisan trophy wall. It is Washington proving it did not just lose the receipt; it somehow misplaced the receipt for the receipt.

    Sources

  • |

    GAO’s DOGE Audit Hits a Bureaucratic Wall: Agencies Refuse to Hand Over Screenshots

    ByHugh Jass

    The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent audit of DOGE’s access to sensitive federal databases has hit a peculiarly bureaucratic snag. Imagine the disappointment, not to mention the comedy, of a diligent watchdog smacking headfirst into a wall of ‘no screenshots allowed’ signs. The Washington Post reported today on just such an absurdity, with various agencies, led by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), stonewalling GAO’s requests for basic walkthroughs and screenshots. It’s almost as if someone thought a simple screenshot had the heft of a state secret.

    The GAO’s intent appears straightforward enough: to understand how DOGE, a protocol known for its humor-infused origin, accessed certain sensitive information. The audit was meant to ensure proper oversight, yet this undertaking has found its pace slowed by missing pixels. Who would have thought the picture would be so hard to capture?

    According to emails obtained in the probe, HHS has explicitly refused to turn over the requested materials, positioning them as mundane yet mysteriously off-limits. Some of these documents might feel lighter than air but have somehow acquired the gravity of classified missives nobody intended to read by human eyes.

    The GAO, unfazed and possibly rolling its eyes, has reaffirmed its dedication to pursuing thorough audits. Yet one can almost hear the filing cabinet clearing its throat as it firmly declines the request for a digital peek behind the curtains. Meanwhile, Representative Bobby Scott has raised the alarm about potential chasms in oversight, as the refusal starkly contrasts with the GAO’s intended litigation match-up.

    Here lies the larger quandary: if an oversight body can’t lay eyes on something as pedestrian as a screenshot, what hope does the public have in gleaning any understanding of data handling within federal bounds? The stakes, though comedic, reflect a serious underlying issue of transparency and accountability.

    In the end, this tale of a watchdog rendered toothless by red tape illustrates the absurd fineries of bureaucratic rigor. The GAO wants to take a look, but it seems the sheer weight of a bureaucratic eyelid remains closed. One can only hope this opener to oversight tomfoolery gets a page refresh soon.

    Sources

End of content

End of content