When the Government Accountability Office opens an investigation, federal agencies are not supposed to have a choice about cooperating. The GAO is a creature of Congress — an independent, nonpartisan watchdog that conducts audits and investigations on behalf of the legislative branch, and whose authority to access agency records is grounded in federal statute. The arrangement exists for a reason: the executive branch controls enormous resources, operates largely out of public view, and is constitutionally accountable to a legislature that cannot be everywhere at once. The GAO is one of the principal mechanisms through which that accountability is made real. Agencies cooperate because the law says they must.
What has unfolded over the past several months, as the GAO has attempted to investigate how Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency accessed some of the most sensitive data systems in the federal government, is a systematic dismantling of that premise. Federal agencies, following a directive issued by the White House, have refused to hand over documents, blocked investigators from interviewing staff, and declined to answer questions the Office of Management and Budget has characterized as "invasive." OMB Director Russell Vought — who has publicly questioned whether the GAO should be permitted to exist at all — has led the charge. The result is that the investigation into one of the most consequential and least-understood episodes in modern federal history is being conducted, in large part, in the dark.
What the GAO Was Trying to Find Out
The GAO investigation, launched months after Musk and a team of young engineers affiliated with DOGE were granted sweeping access to federal agency systems in early 2025, is attempting to answer a deceptively simple question: what did they actually access, and did they follow the rules while doing it?
The question matters because the systems DOGE members entered were not low-sensitivity administrative databases. They included the Treasury Department's payment infrastructure — the systems through which the federal government disburses trillions of dollars annually in Social Security checks, tax refunds, veterans benefits, and federal payroll. They included Internal Revenue Service databases containing the tax records of hundreds of millions of Americans. They included personnel files maintained by the Office of Personnel Management, the agency that was catastrophically breached by Chinese intelligence in 2015 in what remains one of the most damaging espionage operations in American history. The breadth of access claimed by DOGE was, by any prior standard, extraordinary — and it was acquired in days, sometimes hours, with minimal vetting and without the normal security protocols that govern access to systems of this sensitivity.
The GAO has so far released two interim reports from its ongoing investigation. The findings, even in their partial form, are striking. Last month, the office published a report concluding that the Treasury Department had given a DOGE employee access to the government's central payment systems in early 2025 without following its own security procedures — the internal rules that exist to ensure that sensitive infrastructure is not accessed by personnel who lack authorization, have not been properly vetted, or do not have a documented operational need to enter the system. Treasury's own security requirements were not met. The access was granted anyway.
A second report examined DOGE's interactions with the Social Security Administration, finding similar gaps in documentation and security compliance. The SSA maintains records on virtually every American who has ever worked or received federal benefits — a database that, in the wrong hands, could enable identity theft, financial fraud, or foreign intelligence collection on a scale difficult to overstate. The question of who accessed those records, under what authority, and what they did with the information has not yet been fully answered. The GAO's investigation was supposed to provide those answers. It is being prevented from doing so.
The White House Directive
The obstruction is not informal or accidental. The Washington Post reported on May 18 that internal government emails show the White House sent a directive to federal agencies instructing them to limit their cooperation with the GAO's DOGE inquiry. The OMB, which oversees the federal bureaucracy and is controlled by Vought, has positioned itself as the gatekeeper for what information the GAO is permitted to receive — an inversion of the statutory relationship between the two offices that legal scholars say has no precedent in modern administrative practice.
Vought's hostility to the GAO predates this particular investigation. He has publicly argued that the office oversteps its authority and has suggested, in various forums, that its institutional independence from the executive branch is itself constitutionally suspect. The argument has no serious legal support — the GAO's authority derives directly from 31 U.S.C. § 712, which gives it explicit power to examine agency records and inspect agency property — but it functions effectively as a political posture that empowers agency officials to resist GAO requests with the implicit backing of the White House.
Administration officials have also accused the GAO of operating as an instrument of partisan opposition, a characterization that requires ignoring the office's institutional history. The GAO has issued findings critical of administrations of both parties throughout its existence. Its Comptroller General, Gene Dodaro, is a career official who has served under presidents of both parties and has never been credibly accused of political bias. The accusation is not a legal argument. It is a delegitimization strategy — the same playbook the administration has deployed against inspectors general, federal judges, and any other oversight institution that has produced findings inconvenient to its interests.
What Obstruction Looks Like in Practice
The concrete mechanics of the obstruction have emerged from a combination of the GAO's own public statements and reporting on internal agency communications. At the Treasury Department, GAO investigators seeking documentation of the access granted to DOGE employees were told that certain records did not exist or could not be located. At other agencies, requests for interviews with personnel who had direct knowledge of DOGE's operations were denied, with agencies citing the White House directive as their basis for refusal.
The OMB's specific objection — that certain GAO requests are "invasive" — appears to apply primarily to requests for information about what DOGE employees actually did with the access they were given: what queries they ran, what files they opened, what data they exported or copied, and whether any of that information was transmitted outside of federal systems. These are precisely the questions at the center of the investigation. The position that answering them constitutes an invasion is, to put it plainly, the position that the executive branch should not have to explain what it did with the American people's most sensitive personal and financial information.
Congressional Democrats, led by members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, have raised formal alarms about the obstruction. Their letters to the OMB and to affected agencies have thus far received responses that, according to committee staff, amount to form letters declining to provide the requested information. The same pattern that has unfolded in federal courts — executive stonewalling followed by legal delays, public attacks on the investigators, and eventual bureaucratic exhaustion — is playing out in the congressional oversight context as well.
The Conflict-of-Interest Question That Has Never Been Answered
Running beneath the data-access questions is a more fundamental issue that the investigation has not yet been able to reach, in part because the records needed to evaluate it remain unavailable: the conflict-of-interest exposure created by Musk's simultaneous roles as a federal official, a government contractor, and one of the world's largest private technology operators.
When DOGE accessed Treasury's payment systems, those systems process payments to federal contractors — including SpaceX, Musk's aerospace company, which holds billions of dollars in NASA, Department of Defense, and commercial contracts. When DOGE members reviewed IRS data, the IRS is the agency responsible for auditing Musk's own companies. When DOGE personnel entered OPM systems containing the personnel records of federal employees, those same federal employees include the career civil servants responsible for overseeing the regulatory compliance of Tesla, Neuralink, and X. The access that DOGE claimed was, in many cases, access to the records of the very systems with authority over Musk's own financial interests.
Whether that access was actually used in ways that created improper benefit — whether anyone queried contractor payment schedules, audit files, or regulatory records in ways that advantaged DOGE-affiliated private interests — is a question that should have been answered months ago. It has not been answered because the records that would answer it are the records the administration refuses to produce.
The Institutional Stakes
The GAO was created in 1921, in the aftermath of the First World War's revelation that the federal government lacked basic mechanisms for tracking how it spent money. Its founding premise was that democratic accountability requires an independent auditing function — one that answers to the legislature rather than the executive, and that can reach into the operations of the administrative state without being turned away at the door. For more than a century, that premise has held, through administrations of both parties, through wars and economic crises and political scandals. No administration before this one has directed agencies to systematically refuse cooperation with a GAO investigation.
Gene Dodaro, the Comptroller General, has stated publicly that his office will continue the DOGE investigation regardless of obstruction and will report its findings to Congress. What those findings will be able to say — and what they will be forced to leave blank because the evidence was withheld — remains to be seen. The GAO is constitutionally positioned between an executive branch determined not to be watched and a legislative branch whose authority over those records is clear in law but limited in practice when the executive refuses to comply.
The administration's message, delivered through Vought's public statements, the White House directive, and the agency-level stonewalling, is not subtle: we accessed what we accessed, we are not going to tell you what it was, and the institution whose job it is to find out should perhaps not exist. That is not the position of a government that has nothing to hide. It is the position of a government that has decided transparency is optional — and that the watchdog's job is only legitimate when the watchdog finds nothing.
The Final Report's Shadow
The GAO's final report on DOGE's data access is expected later this year. Its conclusions, in whatever form the office is able to produce given the evidentiary gaps created by obstruction, will constitute the most comprehensive public accounting of what DOGE actually did inside the federal government. It will also, by definition, be incomplete — not because the GAO lacked diligence, but because the administration it was investigating locked the doors.
That incompleteness is itself a finding. When a government investigates itself and blocks the investigation, the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. The Treasury gave DOGE access to its payment systems without following security rules. The Social Security Administration's records were entered without adequate documentation. The IRS database — containing the financial history of every American taxpayer — was accessible to engineers whose vetting procedures have never been fully disclosed. What they did inside those systems, and what they took out, remains unknown.
The watchdog was not allowed to watch. What it would have found may be exactly why.
The Ethics Reporter will continue to follow the GAO's DOGE investigation as the final report approaches.
Have information about DOGE's data access, agency obstruction of oversight investigations, or related matters? Submit your tip confidentially at theethicsreporter.com/tip.
🔔 Independent journalism is the last line of accountability when institutions fail. If this reporting matters to you, please support us at theethicsreporter.com/donate.