Rep. Bobby Scott asks HHS inspector general to investigate claims cited in DOGE-related lawsuits

Representative Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat, has asked the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general to investigate what he described as incorrect or potentially fraudulent information that HHS provided as part of ongoing lawsuits involving the Department of Government Efficiency, according to a letter sent Friday and reported by The Hill.

In the letter, Scott raised concerns about the accuracy of claims HHS made in court filings tied to allegations that DOGE officials sought access to or involvement with government information systems, and he requested an inspector general review of whether the information was misleading or not supported, the report said.

Scott’s request centers on the procedural role HHS played in the litigation record. He argues that the agency should be held to account if it submitted inaccurate claims, particularly in an environment where the disputes include allegations about who accessed systems, what tools were used, and what information was provided to the agencies involved.

The lawsuits at issue, as described in the report, are part of a broader legal fight over DOGE’s actions and its alleged “infiltration” of government information systems. Scott’s letter to the watchdog frames the inspector general review as a way to determine whether HHS misstated facts or otherwise provided improper information in support of the government’s positions in court.

HHS is one of the cabinet-level departments subject to oversight by its inspector general, who is responsible for investigating fraud, waste, and abuse and for evaluating whether departmental conduct complies with applicable requirements. Scott’s request seeks additional scrutiny beyond the dispute resolution occurring in the courts, shifting the focus to internal compliance and the integrity of information submitted to tribunals.

The inspector general review requested by Scott would, if opened, typically involve an assessment of the underlying documentation and internal communications supporting the contested claims referenced in the lawsuits. The process would also determine whether any findings should be referred for further enforcement actions or administrative remedies, the report implies.

A response from the inspector general was not described in the reporting, and it was not clear from the available account whether the watchdog will initiate a formal investigation, what scope it would take, or whether any preliminary review has already begun.