White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt holds a press briefing at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 12, 2025.
During a Wednesday press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt found herself in an awkward position after a journalist challenged her characterization of certain federal government contracts as “fraud.” The exchange highlighted the tension between her claims and the standard definition of fraud, raising questions about the administration’s messaging.
Leavitt presented screenshots of what she referred to as “receipts” to support her assertion that federal agencies were riddled with “fraud, waste, and abuse.” She specifically praised Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE)—a private initiative not officially recognized by Congress—for canceling contracts it deemed wasteful.
Leavitt cited several examples to bolster her argument, including a $36,000 contract for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the Biden administration, a $3.4 million contract for “inclusive innovation” at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Patent and Trademark Office, and a $57,000 contract for climate change work in Sri Lanka. She argued that these expenditures were “against the president’s policies and America First agenda,” adding, “I can continue to go through these.”
However, her claims were met with skepticism. CBS News White House correspondent Jennifer Jacobs pressed Leavitt, asking, “Are all of those things you just mentioned fraud, or are they waste, or are they just contrary to the president’s policies?” Leavitt initially doubled down, insisting that “all of these things are fraudulent, they are an abuse, and they are a waste of the American taxpayer’s dollar.” Yet, she ultimately conceded to the underlying premise of Jacobs’ question by acknowledging that the contracts were “contrary to the president’s priorities and agenda.”
Leavitt’s response appeared to conflate the concepts of fraud, waste, and policy disagreements, leading to confusion. Fraud typically involves intentional deception for financial or personal gain, while waste refers to inefficient or unnecessary spending. Policy disagreements, on the other hand, are subjective and reflect differing political priorities. By labeling all the cited contracts as fraudulent, Leavitt seemed to stretch the definition beyond its conventional meaning.
The press secretary concluded her remarks by challenging the room: “If anybody in here wants to argue the federal government is not fraudulent in some capacity, be my guest.” This statement further underscored the administration’s broader narrative of rooting out inefficiency and aligning federal spending with its policy goals. However, the exchange also revealed the difficulty of defending such sweeping claims under scrutiny, particularly when the evidence presented does not align with the accusations being made.
