Staff Reports
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is pulling back the curtain on government inefficiency in a big way, launching a new initiative dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency—an appropriately snappy acronym some might jocularly refer to as DOGE. Under the leadership of Secretary Scott Turner, a man confirmed by the Senate as President Donald Trump’s selection for the role, HUD has already identified a staggering $260 million in potential savings. It seems there may be hope yet for a leaner, meaner government.
Turner wasted no time diving into action upon taking the helm on February 5, announcing the formation of this task force during a press conference that very day. The mission? To scrutinize how HUD can extract maximum value from taxpayer dollars while ensuring that all programs and personnel align to fulfill the department’s objectives. One can only hope this newfound efficiency doesn’t include more funding for pet projects like DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) nonsense.
I’m happy to announce the @DOGE Task Force at HUD.
We will identify and eliminate any waste, fraud, and abuse.
Under President Trump’s leadership business as usual is over. pic.twitter.com/4zAWTWETO9
— Scott Turner (@SecretaryTurner) February 13, 2025
The task force is composed of HUD employees, which might raise eyebrows about insider knowledge, but let’s keep in mind that Turner has made it clear they are taking steps to shield taxpayer dollars from funding what many consider a government fixation on political correctness. The $260 million already identified for savings is evidence that cutting the fat from a bloated budget is not only possible but essential if the government is to stay accountable to the people.
In a twist that would make even a gardener chuckle, the head of this initiative had some colorful advice at a recent World Governments Summit in Dubai. He echoed sentiments that many conservatives have long believed—budget cuts alone may not solve the problem; sometimes, it’s about uprooting entire agencies entirely. In jest, he likened ineffective bureaucracies to weeds, suggesting that if you leave the roots behind, the weeds—much like wasteful government programs—tend to sprout back up.
It’s a refreshing change to hear a government official who recognizes that sometimes a pruning shears approach isn’t enough; an entire removal may be in order. One can only wonder if Turner, inspired by Musk’s advice, might start eyeing government agencies that have more in common with garden weeds than with any semblance of efficiency or usefulness. If this move truly catches on, we might soon see a political landscape where responsible governance isn’t just a dream, but a reality.
