There’s an unsettling undercurrent running through the federal corridors right now—shadow discussions happening behind closed doors, carefully timed leaks seeded to friendly reporters, and a slow, deliberate effort to reframe the Department of Government Efficiency as something it is not.
Why would a department that saved taxpayers $1.2 billion in under a year face accusations of political misconduct?
The story being crafted is that @DOGE, an agency established under President Trump with a straightforward mandate to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, has somehow evolved into a partisan coalition embedded within the government itself. That narrative is dangerous because it is not based on evidence, but on orchestration. I’ve seen this tactic before: the selective release of internal chatter, dressed up as proof, and the insinuations that lawful cost-cutting measures are merely political maneuvers. It mirrors the way agencies and their allies have historically weaponized perception when reform threatens their interests.
Think of the Office of Special Counsel’s reports during the Obama era that warned of Hatch Act violations tied to official appearances at campaign-style events—warnings that were widely reported but rarely enforced. Or recall the way Kellyanne Conway’s repeated Hatch Act violations were documented and flagged by OSC, only to have the White House dismiss the findings, which revealed not the weakness of the law itself but the pliability of its enforcement depending on who holds power. That’s the blueprint being used here: craft a narrative of impropriety, point to the Hatch Act as a hook, and let the accusation stand in the court of public opinion even when the law itself remains unbroken. The goal is not to prove that DOGE has overstepped but to make the accusation so familiar, so repeated, that the perception becomes reality and the integrity of the agency is eroded without a single finding of fact.
This narrative was never about uncovering the truth—it is pure perception management, designed to manufacture backlash, invite legal scrutiny, and, if successful, create enough public pressure to dissolve DOGE altogether. The foundation of it is resentment, not law. It comes from the very networks and individuals who for decades profited from inefficiency and are now watching their guaranteed streams of money and influence dry up. The irony is that while these attacks grow louder, DOGE, under the leadership of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has already delivered measurable results—over $1.2 billion in taxpayer savings and the identification of more than two thousand regulations that serve no purpose but to suffocate growth and preserve bureaucratic fiefdoms. That record of accomplishment is precisely why it is being targeted.
Opponents, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, have taken to amplifying the most trivial and speculative claims, packaging them as ethics scandals to blunt DOGE’s momentum. One example they keep returning to is the claim that Musk, during the signing of an executive order in the Oval Office on February 11, 2025, wore a “Make America Great Again” hat, which they insist constitutes a Hatch Act violation. On its face, the accusation is absurdly thin, but its power lies in the way it is repeated, headlined, and cemented in the public mind. Warren’s own publication, 130 Days of Elon Musk, is built on this framing—portraying routine cost-cutting measures and regulatory rollbacks as covert partisan maneuvers.
This is an old Washington tactic: transform normal governance into the appearance of corruption by sheer force of narrative. It’s the same playbook that was used against reform-minded officials in past administrations—accusations that grab headlines and trigger calls for investigations, even when the substance behind them cannot withstand legal scrutiny. In the case of DOGE, the allegations are not about violating the Hatch Act, but rather about protecting the entrenched inefficiencies that DOGE was created to dismantle. Critics argue it erodes public trust, but as of August 2025, no formal Office of Special Counsel (OSC) investigation exists, and the OSC has declined comment.
What is the Hatch Act?
The Hatch Act, formally enacted in 1939 as the Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321–7326), was designed as a firewall between government service and partisan politics, a safeguard meant to preserve the neutrality of the federal workforce. At its core, it draws clear boundaries: federal employees cannot campaign, endorse candidates, or participate in rallies while performing official duties or using government resources; they are generally barred from running in partisan elections; they cannot leverage their position to solicit political donations; and they are prohibited from displaying partisan symbols in federal workplaces during official functions. These prohibitions are not symbolic—they are enforceable, with penalties ranging from fines of up to $1,000 to suspension, demotion, or even removal from service, all under the authority of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The intent of the law was simple yet profound: to guarantee that public service is delivered impartially and that taxpayer-funded resources are not weaponized for electoral advantage.
However, what history reveals is that enforcement of this law has always been uneven, often influenced by politics itself. In 2016, for instance, a White House official in the Obama administration used social media to make partisan endorsements in direct violation of the statute, yet faced little consequence. This outcome underscored how selectively the law can be applied. During the same era, employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs were disciplined for overtly partisan activities carried out while on duty, demonstrating that lower-level employees are more likely to feel the sting of enforcement than politically connected figures. The most glaring example came during Donald Trump’s first term, when Kellyanne Conway repeatedly violated the Hatch Act through her media appearances and public statements. OSC explicitly recommended her removal, but the White House ignored it, exposing a double standard in which the Act’s teeth seemed sharpest when biting down on rank-and-file workers rather than senior officials.
This record of selective enforcement is what makes the current accusations surrounding the Department of Government Efficiency so revealing. DOGE’s mandate has been cost-cutting, deregulation, and rooting out federal inefficiencies, not partisan campaigning. Yet critics, unable to challenge the results directly—billions saved, thousands of redundant regulations marked for elimination—have tried to recast these reforms as partisan maneuvers in violation of the Hatch Act. These claims, however, remain speculative and unsubstantiated, relying more on creative reinterpretations than on documented evidence. What we are seeing is less a legal case and more a narrative war, where a statute meant to ensure neutrality is being bent into a political weapon. And that is precisely the irony: a law created to keep politics out of government work is now being manipulated to drag government reform efforts into the center of partisan conflict.
The OSC and Its Role in Hatch Act Enforcement
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is one of the least understood yet most consequential watchdogs in the federal system. As an independent agency, its statutory mandate is to protect federal employees, enforce the Hatch Act, and oversee whistleblower disclosures. This unusual portfolio places it at the intersection of ethics, accountability, and political neutrality. Its work is not confined to routine investigations; it functions as the referee in a constant struggle between government efficiency and political influence. When the OSC acts, it can suspend or remove employees, refer cases for prosecution, or issue public reports that carry enormous political weight. Yet when it hesitates or chooses not to act, its silence can be just as powerful, signaling either institutional caution or political calculation.
As of August 17, 2025, the agency is led by Acting Special Counsel Jamieson Greer, a figure whose appointment is significant not only because of his role here but because he simultaneously serves as U.S. Trade Representative. That dual position—one foot in enforcement, the other in high-level trade negotiations—creates a remarkable fusion of responsibilities that underscores how deeply questions of ethics, compliance, and global policy are now intertwined. Greer took over on April 1, 2025, after the short-lived acting tenure of former Congressman Doug Collins, who held the post for less than a month. Both appointments followed President Trump’s controversial dismissal of Hampton Dellinger on February 7, a move that triggered immediate legal disputes and even a reinstatement order currently under appeal. The episode is part of a broader pattern in which the leadership of the OSC has itself become a battlefield, contested not just over personnel but over the very authority of the office to act independently in politically sensitive cases.
The OSC’s influence is felt in real time. One of its recent high-profile actions involved probing former Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith for potential Hatch Act violations, an investigation that made headlines not because of the outcome—which remains pending—but because of the symbolic weight. The fact that an independent prosecutor, charged with pursuing some of the most politically explosive cases in modern history, could himself come under Hatch Act scrutiny demonstrates the paradoxical nature of enforcement: the enforcer can just as easily become the accused. Historical parallels abound. During the Obama administration, OSC pursued low- and mid-level employees for relatively minor infractions while criticism mounted over its reluctance to take on politically sensitive figures. Under Trump, the Kellyanne Conway case illustrated the limits of OSC’s power, as the White House simply ignored its recommendation for her removal. In both instances, the law was clear, but the political will to enforce it against top officials was absent.
What we see now is an agency still struggling with its dual identity as both protector of the workforce and enforcer of ethics in an environment where those mandates collide with partisan battles. Whether the OSC under Greer can assert itself as a genuinely independent guardian, or whether it continues to be bent by the political winds surrounding its leadership, will define its legacy in the years to come. And in the case of DOGE, where accusations are already being shaped to fit a partisan narrative, the OSC’s posture—whether active, passive, or selective—will be every bit as consequential as the reforms DOGE is pursuing.
The OSC’s Test: Neutrality or Narrative Weapon?
The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) now faces its most pivotal test in years with DOGE: will it enforce neutrality as intended, or allow itself to be pulled into the role of narrative weapon in a coordinated campaign to derail reform? Critics, including the organized “Federal Workers Against DOGE” (FWAD), are already exploiting OSC’s silence. They invoke its authority as if a ruling had been made, painting DOGE as a Hatch Act violator without evidence. There is no formal investigation, no findings, nothing on the record. Yet they continue to amplify unproven claims—such as the spectacle of Elon Musk’s MAGA hat in the Oval Office on February 11, 2025—pushing them through TikTok campaigns, “No Kings” rallies, and a steady churn of social media outrage that feeds on repetition, not fact.
The OSC’s own record gives these critics oxygen. Its history of selective enforcement—ignoring Kellyanne Conway’s repeated violations in 2017 while choosing to probe Jack Smith in 2025—has made the agency appear less like a neutral arbiter and more like a tool to be wielded when convenient. Under Acting Special Counsel Jamieson Greer, appointed on April 1, 2025, following the controversial dismissal of Hampton Dellinger, the agency is navigating a deeply politicized system. However, the reality is clear: the OSC is spread too thin, leadership is temporary, and the absence of a permanent Special Counsel undermines both its authority and its capacity. In that vacuum, groups like FWAD and their allies, who coordinate openly on Zoom calls and through social media networks, know that perception will always trump fact in Washington. They are leveraging the OSC’s very name to stall and discredit DOGE’s $1.2 billion in savings and thousands of regulations marked for elimination, reducing accountability to rumor.
This is why an immediate appointment of a permanent Special Counsel is imperative. Without clear leadership and a strong, independent voice at the top, the OSC cannot fulfill its mandate. An understaffed, politically vulnerable watchdog is no watchdog at all—it becomes a pawn, its silence as powerful as its rulings. The Hatch Act was never meant to be a partisan cudgel, but that is precisely what it has become in the absence of firm, impartial enforcement. To break this cycle, the OSC must be strengthened, not hollowed out, and that begins with stable leadership willing to assert independence. Anything less ensures that the law designed to shield the government from politics will continue to be manipulated to protect inefficiency, shield entrenched networks, and sabotage reform.
The choice before the OSC is stark: rise above the orchestrated campaign and prove that ethics enforcement can transcend factional warfare, or allow DOGE’s critics—actively organizing to preserve their grip on taxpayer money—to dictate the narrative unchallenged. And without an immediate, permanent appointment to lead, that choice may already be slipping away.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume IV is now on sale.
