A recent conversation with a friend compelled me to write this article. I want to share with you what I told him about corruption and oversight. Look, the “machine” wants you to believe that the real issue with recent government audits and investigations isn’t about corruption or incompetence—it’s procedural overreach. The argument goes like this: teams tasked with uncovering inefficiencies have strayed beyond their legal mandates, accessed restricted information, and violated long-standing data security laws. And if they weren’t supposed to be looking, then—so the machine insists—nothing they find should matter. It shouldn’t be admissible. It shouldn’t even be discussed. Well, that’s an interesting argument, but is it accurate?

In reality, and from either a Constitutional, Leadership, or Organizational perspective, this line of reasoning is a convenient distraction and fundamentally flawed. The people need to understand that the executive branch isn’t just allowed to conduct audits and internal investigations—it is expected to. Waste reduction, restructuring, and agency efficiency are all within its purview. Yet, the machine has gone out of its way to try and convince the people that the executive branch is out of control or out of line.

I would argue that Article II of the U.S. Constitution is rather clear about the executive power of the President. The President, as the head of the executive branch, is responsible for ensuring that laws are faithfully executed. And for those who don’t know how organizations are run, this responsibility inherently includes overseeing the operations of executive agencies to ensure accountability and efficiency. Audits and internal investigations are part of its governance responsibilities because such activities are critical for ensuring accountability, compliance, and the efficient use of resources within executive agencies.

So, with that out of the way, understand that it’s not even the point. When a team within the executive branch exposes mismanagement, fraud, or corruption, it should come as no surprise that those who benefit from the status quo will cry foul. However, their cries don’t necessarily indicate an actual legal violation. More often, it signals discomfort among entrenched power structures resistant to scrutiny.

Critics of these investigations claim that government auditors must adhere strictly to bureaucratic protocol. Process, they say, is paramount. That’s fine, but history has shown that rigid adherence to outdated policies and internal procedures often serves as a shield for corruption rather than a safeguard against it. Understand that bureaucracy protects itself. Also, understand that if investigations are constrained by the very systems they seek to examine, they will only uncover what those in power are willing to reveal. The argument that audits should only occur within predefined limits set by the existing establishment is fundamentally flawed—it assumes that the system has an interest in exposing its own failures rather than perpetuating them.

Yet, if we are being honest with ourselves, the opposition to these investigations is not solely about process. If this were merely a question of maintaining security clearances or staying within the scope of an initial mandate, the response would be measured. Instead, the reaction has been one of extreme resistance—an all-out information war designed to discredit the effort itself. Frankly, you are the target!

Of course, this aligns with a well-documented pattern: the Escalatory Suppression Model. First, those leading the charge are dismissed as unserious. When that fails, they are marginalized and ridiculed. If they persist, the media begins censoring discussion of their findings. Should they continue pressing forward, direct attacks follow—legal, financial, or reputational. If necessary, elimination in some form is the final step. This model is predictable because it is effective. In fact, I think I will write an article on that specific topic very soon. Check back.

Anyway, what remains unclear is why, after years of governmental overreach against private citizens, the political establishment has suddenly rediscovered its respect for process and legality. The same agencies that have been caught engaging in warrantless surveillance, politically motivated investigations, and the selective enforcement of laws now insist that rules must be followed to the letter. Here’s the problem with that: selective enforcement is not justice. It is a mechanism of control. When power is wielded arbitrarily, the process ceases to be about fairness and instead becomes a tool for maintaining dominance.

Of course, there is another common counterargument that must be addressed: “Both sides are corrupt.” While absolutely true, this is actually an oversimplification that obscures the real conflict. The fundamental divide is not between political parties but between the machine and the people. Partisan squabbles are a distraction from the bipartisan consensus that maintaining the status quo is the primary goal of those in power.

The machine—the entrenched bureaucratic and political elite—functions to protect itself, regardless of whether the ruling party is red or blue. This is why those who attempt to challenge its authority, particularly outsiders, are met with overwhelming institutional resistance. I probably don’t have to tell you this, but the machine will tolerate internal corruption, but it will not abide by genuine disruption. That’s your clue, and it’s precisely why I wrote the article The REAL Problem is the Revolving Door.

At the end of the day, I want you to understand that the debate is not about whether rules matter. Of course, they do. But when corruption is this deeply entrenched, defending the very walls that protect it under the guise of “following the proper process” is, at best, naive and, at worst, complicit. The question is not whether those conducting these investigations are perfect. The question is whether the system itself is legitimate. If it is, then audits, oversight, and reform should be welcomed, not resisted. If it is not, then clinging to procedural justifications only serves to reinforce a broken status quo.

That being said, I want to address another potential argument. Some have suggested that the legitimacy of oversight initiatives is undermined by the fact that those leading them are not elected. If this is the hill you choose to die on, consider that approximately 99.98% of the federal government is unelected. Bureaucrats, administrators, and agency employees—who draft regulations, execute laws, and manage federal operations—form the backbone of government. If their lack of electoral status invalidates their work, then nearly the entire federal system would be in question. And to that point, perhaps it should.

In a broken system, the only real surprise is that anyone is still shocked when dysfunction is exposed. For this, perhaps the real question isn’t whether corruption exists—it’s whether you want or are willing to see it. So ask yourself: are you on the side of the machine or the side of the people? And more importantly, which side is actually on your side? I think that if you’re being honest with yourself, the answer is clear. Just understand that this divide isn’t new—it’s been there from the start. The only thing that changes is whether we choose to acknowledge it and act accordingly.