In a groundbreaking audit shaking up federal IT procurement practices, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has exposed tens of thousands of unused and mismanaged software licenses within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) — potentially costing U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars annually.

What Is DOGE?

Launched in 2024 as a cost-saving and transparency-focused task force, DOGE was initiated under pressure from public and political figures demanding accountability in federal spending. The team, which operates independently of existing inspector generals, is tasked with identifying government waste, inefficiency, and redundancy across agencies.

Their latest report, targeting HUD’s digital infrastructure, paints a stunning picture of oversight failure and software licensing bloat.

What the Audit Revealed

DOGE investigators uncovered a surplus of enterprise software licenses that were being paid for—but rarely, if ever, used. According to the report:

• 35,855 ServiceNow licenses were purchased, yet only 84 were in use
• 11,020 Adobe Acrobat Pro licenses showed zero active users
• 1,776 IBM Cognos licenses, with only 325 being utilized
• 1,200 WestLaw Classic accounts were active, yet 1,198 users had no login history
• Java SE subscriptions were being renewed despite open-source alternatives being used

The total estimated waste? Upwards of $25 million annually, though the exact figure remains under review.

Why It Matters

This revelation is more than just a financial scandal—it highlights a deep-seated flaw in federal procurement processes. Many government departments fail to conduct proper software asset management (SAM), leading to outdated licensing models, underutilization, and unnecessary renewals.

Experts Weigh In:

“This is a systemic issue. Agencies often license software at scale ‘just in case’—but no one follows up to ensure adoption,” said Eric Holloway, a federal IT procurement advisor.

Some argue these licenses may be “sitting in reserve” for future hires or contractors. But DOGE counters that most products were renewed without a single internal usage review, violating multiple federal cost-efficiency mandates.

Fallout & Reactions

The DOGE report has ignited a firestorm in D.C.:

• Congressional Oversight Committees are now demanding a full cross-agency audit
• HUD has pledged to immediately cancel unused licenses and review procurement policies
• Tech vendors like Adobe and IBM declined to comment on potential license refunds or overbilling concerns
• Advocacy groups are calling for the adoption of open-source alternatives across federal offices

HUD spokesperson Alicia Martinez stated,

“We appreciate the insights from DOGE and are actively taking corrective action to ensure taxpayer funds are not wasted.”

Technology Mismanagement or Modernization Failure?

While some blame poor planning and siloed departments, others believe this reflects a lack of digital modernization strategies. The federal government’s move toward cloud-native applications, automation, and remote work tools has been uneven across agencies.

DOGE’s Suggestion:

• Implement a federal Software License Heads-Up Display (HUD) system to track real-time license utilization
• Mandate annual software audits
• Transition to usage-based or open-source licensing models

What’s Next?

In the wake of the audit, DOGE has announced upcoming reviews at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Education (DoE) — both of which reportedly spend tens of millions annually on software subscriptions.

Meanwhile, transparency advocates are pushing for legislation modeled on the SAMOSA Act (Software Accountability and Management Oversight in Strategic Agencies) — which would require agencies to publish software license usage data annually.

Final Thoughts

The HUD software license audit is more than a budget issue—it’s a wake-up call for modernizing how the federal government thinks about tech. In an era when efficiency and transparency are more critical than ever, tools like license tracking dashboards and proactive audits may no longer be optional—they’re essential