---

Chanel Rion interviews TCC President Jim Pfaff: DOGE and Social Security

Published: March 31, 2025
Network: The Conservative Caucus
Analysis: Conservative Caucus President Jim Pfaff

---

The Washington Post and former government officials are mounting a defensive campaign against DOGE’s investigation into Social Security fraud, claiming Elon Musk’s department is “struggling to find fraud” in the massive entitlement program. Conservative Caucus President Jim Pfaff joined Chanel Rion to break down why these pushback efforts reveal more about government transparency problems than they do about DOGE’s findings. The debate centers on whether claims of widespread Social Security fraud are legitimate or exaggerated—and who Americans should trust to tell them the truth.

Topics Covered

• Media and Former Officials Push Back on DOGE Findings
• The Reality of Social Security Fraud in Federal Programs
• Government Transparency: The Real Smoking Gun
• Outdated Systems and 150-Year-Old Beneficiaries
• The Intercept’s FOIA Lawsuit Against DOGE
• Federal Judge’s Ruling on USAID Dismantlement
• Key Takeaways

Media and Former Officials Push Back on DOGE Findings

The Washington Post, which proudly declares “democracy dies in darkness,” is now fighting against the transparency Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is bringing to federal spending. The newspaper claims DOGE is struggling to find fraud in Social Security, citing former Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, who served under George W. Bush, insisting Musk’s claims are “flat out wrong.” Pfaff wasn’t buying it. “The Washington Post doesn’t have all that good a record when it comes to lying, so we could start with that,” he noted. While acknowledging that some of DOGE’s initial findings might involve database errors rather than actual fraud, Pfaff emphasized the bigger picture: “There is a massive problem with Social Security and any of these benefit programs including SNAP… there’s a lot of fraud in these. We know that for a fact.”

“I do not in the least trust a former Bush Administration or Obama administration or whoever employee would tell us that no, no, no, no, we’ve looked into this. Well no, we’re looking into it right now. Something’s there.”
— Jim Pfaff, President, The Conservative Caucus

The immediate skepticism toward anyone claiming a system as massive as Social Security was administered perfectly, with no cracks in the armor, raises red flags. As Rion pointed out, it’s “automatically suspicious” for officials to stand up and declare everything was done flawlessly.

The Reality of Social Security Fraud in Federal Programs

Congressman Tim Burchett told Rion earlier in her program that he’s willing to lose his job to expose the real reason officials oppose DOGE’s work. Pfaff agreed there are multiple “smoking guns” waiting to be discovered. “This whole effort has been a fantastic opportunity for the American people to get a better sense of what their government is really up to,” Pfaff explained, drawing on his eight years working on Capitol Hill. He described the near-impossible task congressional offices face when requesting information from federal agencies: “When they’re not forthcoming, then there are problems. When transparency is pushed back upon, that means someone’s hiding something.” The fundamental issue, Pfaff argued, is that Americans deserve a transparent government. While certain limited circumstances require privacy—contractual arrangements, classified information, ongoing criminal investigations—these represent only 10-20% of what should be kept private. “The rest of it should be wide open to the American people. The books of all these agencies should be wide open, just like looking at their checking account online.”

Government Transparency: The Real Smoking Gun

One of the most revealing aspects of the DOGE controversy isn’t what they’re finding—it’s the resistance they’re encountering. Pfaff emphasized that lack of transparency is itself evidence of wrongdoing. “One of the fundamental freedoms for Americans is a transparent government,” he stated. The pushback against DOGE’s investigations reveals agencies unwilling to work with Congress and be accountable to it, engaging in activities that are “sometimes just negligent and many times nefarious.” The pattern extends beyond Social Security. Pfaff pointed to USAID as another example where lack of transparency revealed serious problems. “We have a Social Security Administration that is really problematic. There’s definitely waste there. I don’t know what the number is, I don’t think Elon claims to know what the number is, but don’t tell me you’re an independent fact-checker figuring this out. The fact-checker is DOGE.”

Outdated Systems and 150-Year-Old Beneficiaries

One of the most eye-opening claims from President Trump and Elon Musk involves 150-year-old individuals supposedly collecting Social Security benefits. Self-proclaimed fact-checkers have rushed to label these claims “baseless,” but Pfaff questioned their methodology. “DOGE has the evidence. I don’t know where they think they’re getting their fact-checking information from because again, none of this is made public,” Pfaff explained. While personal identifying information (PII) obviously shouldn’t be released publicly, the existence of such database anomalies points to serious systemic problems.

“There are definitely problems with a computer system that is so outdated that is not really operating efficiently enough to get rid of whatever of these people are really too old and their name just kind of lingered on the database even if they weren’t getting a check. That problem is more evidence to something very real going on.”
— Jim Pfaff, President, The Conservative Caucus

Whether these database entries represent actual Social Security fraud with checks going to deceased individuals’ accounts, or simply reflect incompetent record-keeping, both scenarios reveal a system in desperate need of reform and modernization.

The Intercept’s FOIA Lawsuit Against DOGE

Adding another layer to the controversy, reporter Sean Musgrave from The Intercept announced a lawsuit against DOGE for allegedly dodging a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. DOGE claims it is not technically an agency subject to FOIA requirements. Pfaff sided with DOGE on this issue, explaining the nuances of executive privilege. “Anything that Donald Trump is directly involved in is not subject to FOIA,” he noted. Since DOGE operates under Trump’s direct executive authority and runs out of the White House, it falls under executive privilege protections. “White House employees cannot be FOIA’d.” However, Pfaff didn’t dismiss transparency concerns entirely. “We do want FOIA in the various federal agencies,” he acknowledged. What he found absurd was The Intercept’s focus: “There are all these federal agencies that are doing the various things that we’re finding out about. Those are the ones that The Intercept should be going after.”

Federal Judge’s Ruling on USAID Dismantlement

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that DOGE had no authority to dismantle USAID, arguing that Musk was “neither appointed nor confirmed by the Senate,” thus depriving Congress of its constitutional authority to decide whether, when, and how to close down an agency created by Congress. Pfaff’s response was unequivocal: “This judge is absolutely wrong. I mean, on its face, it’s absolutely wrong.” He highlighted the hypocrisy by invoking two words: “Jack Smith.” The same people who had no problem with Special Counsel Jack Smith pursuing Donald Trump—despite clear appointment issues—now object to DOGE’s structure. “What Donald Trump has set up with DOGE is something both Barack Obama and I think even Bill Clinton did, and all the way back to the Eisenhower Administration. This type of effort has been done under the president’s direct authority for a long period of time.”

“The president does have the authority to use those efforts to retract funds that are being used illegally… Under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution… one thing that is not authorized by Congress is for fraudulent spending. They cannot authorize that.”
— Jim Pfaff, President, The Conservative Caucus

Pfaff argued that the president is duty-bound to stop fraudulent and illegal spending, and that this authority cannot be rationally overridden by courts. If Congress cannot constitutionally authorize fraudulent spending, then the executive has both the authority and obligation to halt it.

Key Takeaways

1. Media Defensive Posture Reveals Vulnerability – The Washington Post and former government officials’ aggressive pushback against DOGE’s Social Security fraud investigations suggests they’re protecting a system with serious problems rather than defending an efficient operation.
2. Transparency Resistance Is Evidence of Problems – When federal agencies refuse to provide information to Congress or resist oversight, it’s a clear indicator that something is being hidden. True transparency should be the default, not the exception.
3. Database Issues Point to Systemic Failures – Whether 150-year-old beneficiaries represent actual fraud or just incompetent record-keeping, both scenarios demonstrate a Social Security system in desperate need of modernization and reform.
4. Executive Privilege Protects DOGE Operations – DOGE operates under direct presidential authority, similar to efficiency efforts dating back to the Eisenhower Administration, and is protected by executive privilege from FOIA requests targeting White House operations.
5. Presidential Authority to Stop Fraudulent Spending – The Constitution does not authorize Congress to approve fraudulent spending, giving the president both the authority and duty to halt such expenditures regardless of judicial interference.
6. Multiple Federal Programs Face Similar Problems – Social Security fraud is part of a larger pattern affecting SNAP, welfare programs, USAID, and other federal agencies that resist accountability and transparency.
7. Political Motivation Behind Legal Challenges – Lawsuits and judicial rulings against DOGE appear motivated more by opposition to the Trump administration’s reform agenda than by legitimate constitutional concerns or transparency advocacy.

---

Share This Analysis

About The Conservative Caucus:
The Conservative Caucus is a grassroots public policy action organization, formed in 1974. Headed by President Jim Pfaff, the Caucus is committed to advancing free enterprise, limited government, and traditional values.

Originally broadcast March 31, 2025 on The Conservative Caucus.