> government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows

> government is spending money inefficiently, which is a rational thing to think (after all, the government doesn't pass audits which means no one really knows how DoD money is spent at minimum), then it stands to reason that inspector generals were doing a poor job and therefore their removal is a good thing because they were complicit in the inefficiency. That doesn't follow. First, the existence of inefficiency doesn't mean the IGs are doing a poor job. It's rational to expect the optimal amount of inefficiency and fraud to be nonzero, so it could be the case they are performing as good as they possibly can be expected. Second, government agencies do routinely pass audits. You highlighted the one that doesn't routinely pass audits, but that doesn't mean others don't. Incidentally DoD is the one with the most bloat, and the one DOGE isn't really going after. In fact, they went after USAID first, which just passed an audit.