← The Daily Scoop Podcast
The Daily Scoop Podcast
As Trump targets fraud, the government’s identity focus reaches a new peak
00:21:45
As part of its effort to root out the waste and a…
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:00]
A
Today on the Daily Scoop Podcast from the Scoop News Group. As the Trump administration targets fraud, the government's identity struggles reach a new peak. Jordan Burress joins the Daily Scoop to Discuss. It's Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026. Welcome to the Daily Scoop Podcast, where you'll hear the latest news and trends facing government leaders. I'm the host of the Daily Scoop Podcast, Billy Mitchell. Thanks so much for joining me. And now let's dive into the day's top headlines. The Department of Energy is piloting grok, the generative AI tool from Elon Musk's XAI within its Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, according to the agency's AI Use Case Inventory. The pilot was launched at the end of June of 2025 and has been used to find general answers to questions, summarize information and create documents. The GROK pilot comes at a time when the Energy Department is pursuing ambitious AI goals as part of its role in leading the Trump administration's Genesis mission. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has repeatedly characterized the AI effort as the Manhattan Project of our time. Grok, though, has been a controversial addition to the federal government's workflows since the start. Following its posting of racist and anti Semitic comments last July, a group of more than 30 advocacy organizations called on the Office of Management and Budget to prohibit the use of GROK across the federal government. Just a month after XAI launched GROK for Government last summer, Gronk has continued to dominate headlines. In the months since, the chatbot has generated biased or misleading claims, garnering the attention of foreign governments and domestic watchdogs. Now, in other news, the Department of Veterans affairs has tapped former government technology leader Zach Schwartz to serve as the next principal deputy assistant secretary for the agency's Office of Information and Technology. In this role, Schwartz will oversee technology strategy, daily IT operations, cybersecurity systems modernization and service delivery across the department, VA Deputy Secretary Paul Lawrence wrote in an announcement post on Monday. Swartz will work under Lawrence, who also serves as the agency's acting chief information officer and assistant secretary for oit. Swartz joins the VA with more than a decade of government IT experience, having previously served at the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau. These roles involved work on modernization and agency wide transformation initiatives, Lawrence said. Schwartz announced the move on his own LinkedIn Sunday evening, writing that he appreciates the many colleagues across VA who supported his transition and welcomed him to the role. Schwartz most recently served as the chief information and technology officer at Events DC, an events hosting company, according to his LinkedIn profile. Stepping into the role. He will replace Eddie Poole, who served as acting CIO until last December, when he transitioned to OIT's acting principal deputy assistant secretary. OIT's leadership roles have faced uncertainty for several months. Ryan Cote, who previously served as the Transportation Department CIO in the first Trump administration, was nominated to serve as assistant secretary for OIT and CIO last July, but President Donald Trump withdrew it just weeks later. For more news at the intersection of the federal government and technology, make sure to visit fedscoop.com as part of its effort to root out the waste and abuse of government resources, the Trump administration has recently placed fraud squarely in its crosshairs. With that, senior government officials and other policymakers have pointed to the need for stronger and more prevalent identity verification to combat that fraud. An expert in digital identity verification, Jordan Burris, former chief of staff to the federal CIO during the first Trump administration and part of President Biden's term and now head of public sector at Secure, joins me to discuss the ongoing issues around identity fraud, the US's journey to a national digital identity verification system, and why Washington has struggled so much to get identity right. Let's go now to that conversation with Jordan Burris. All right, Jordan, friend, good to see you. How are you doing? I hope you're staying warm with all.
- [04:07]
B
The crazy snowy weather we've had over the last couple days.
- [04:10]
C
Hey, Billy, thanks for having me. And yeah, I'm trying to find a way to stay warm. We'll see what the basement allows me. Yeah, we're in the house.
- [04:17]
B
At least I think we're in a real life depiction of Frozen right now. Everything is iced over and I don't know that we're going anywhere anytime soon, but luckily we have this great platform to chat remotely and have a conversation.
- [04:31]
C
So.
- [04:31]
B
Looking forward to it.
- [04:33]
C
Yes, likewise. Likewise.
- [04:35]
A
So, Jordan, let's start up north.
- [04:36]
B
Obviously, I think anyone who's paid attention to sort of identity and fraud lately has heard about what's going on in Minnesota and how that's served as sort of a microcosm for this larger issue around identity, identity verification and the stuff that can go on with fraud and fraudulent payments and improper payments. So tell me what you you sort of learned, you know, given your role helping Secure and the identity verification stuff you guys do and how that can kind of feed into this larger understanding about how important identity is, particularly as we look forward to the 2026 election cycle.
- [05:13]
C
Yeah, absolutely. So it's interesting as we start to talk more about fraud, I think I've probably spent More time recently helping different groups, organizations understand the differences in the types of fraud that ultimately exist. Right. There's a number, of course, things that are happening in Minnesota and other states all across the country, but the reality here is that, you know, there's in many cases this jump between understanding what fraud looks like when it's more of an eligibility determination or someone effectively lied about what they were doing with funding that was provided versus, you know, other types of fraud that we work with to which can be everything from I've stolen what would be your identity, Billy, and I'm trying to use it for another type of benefit. I think that really in these moments, and you know, independent of everything else that's happening and kind of the politicization of really just comes under the funnel question of like, can you trust the person that you're engaging with online? And if not, what can be done about it? What insight can you glean based on what's available? I think that this is really kind of more of an inflection point for these organizations and really grappling as to how do they move forward, how do they take that next best step in addressing any root cause issues that may have previously existed.
- [06:32]
B
Sure. And I think it's very interesting the way you kind of spelled it out. It's obviously a spectrum of different types of fraud from, you know, some of the most, you know, treacherous identity frauds to just, you know, somebody misrepresenting how they're using funds and things like that. All that, though, I, I would say, and I think you'd agree with me, is not a new issue. I don't think that Minnesota is the first one to deal with this. So why do you think it's, you know, coming to a head right now? Is it because this administration is so hell bent on rooting out waste and stealing of taxpayer funds or what exactly might make it, you know, center stage today?
- [07:12]
C
It's interesting. I think if anything, it's more of a just a wakeup call in general or things that you. There's like questions that have historically been asked and probably more scrutiny that is being placed on it. It's like looking at any cyber security adage in particular. Right. For years, everyone talks about the weakest link in the cyber security chain being identity. People talk about how you shouldn't be using username and password only anymore. Everyone continues to scream it, and it's usually right when there's a large incident or a breach of some sort where these were the root causes that were identified that everyone, for Some reason kind of has this enlightenment and wake up moment where they're like, let's do something about it. Improper payments as they've existed across government have been an ongoing issue in all states, in the federal government, even in itself under different administrations. However, in many cases, some of it has not been actioned and there hasn't been steps that have concretely been taken to do something about it, to kind of change what was the status quo. For whatever reason, the politicization has taken place and it's become, you know, limelight for everyone. I think for me it's more of this is a, it's one of those moments, you know, they say that the saying, don't let a good crisis go to waste. I think it's an important piece where we have to kind of wake up and take that next step forward as to what we're going to do to better manage risk, manage improper payments. If this administration is truly serious about, you know, tackling it, and in many cases I have seen, you know, signs that they, they are, then, you know, my hope is that they're working towards building a coalition towards continuing this work well beyond what is the current discussion point, because I view it really as a bipartisan issue that must be solved.
- [08:58]
B
So just, you know, before moving forward, because I do want to talk about some of the solutions and I know you can have, share some good thoughts on that. But you mentioned, you know, this happens in all states. Minnesota is just one piece of this bigger puzzle. Any, any sort of information you can share about the scale of this issue and you know, how the, the, you know, what the federal government deals with on an annual basis or any sort of data points that kind of illuminate how treacherous this issue is.
- [09:25]
C
Yeah, sure. Now to, to answer that, I'll actually talk a little bit about like kind of why it's happening where, where it's coming from. Right. And so it's very easy to say that in many instances, or it's like kind of common for everyone to try to point towards it being, hey, it's probably a few bad actors that are operating within the country. Right. And say that for some reason someone has lied on their application for benefit, it's someone who is local to the neighborhood or someone who lives in the state, et cetera. It is that and more. With the push to digitize and better use digital services for rendering benefits payments to individuals, we've effectively created a breeding ground that allows for everyone, those who are in country and those are out of country nation states, et cetera, in order to attack us. From what we've seen, and, you know, we actually put out a report related to it, is that we've seen substantial increases year over year of activities and attacks, all targeting government programs. Anytime there is an interaction with the public, this could be everything from filing your taxes to applying for different types of insurance programs, to requesting updates to your DMV record or you're getting your license reissued. Every moment where it's kind of this critical point where there's an engagement with that person, there is ripe for a type of attack where you're. Where there's some type of fraudulent activity could take place. And again, could be everything from I've stolen an identity to I've lied about my eligibility for types of benefits and programs lead to then an improper payment or payment going to the wrong type of individual. Right. There's an entire spectrum of it. And like we've just seen a continued increase year over year over year, probably akin to just the increase in automation and how easy it is for someone to be able to execute these types of attacks at scale.
- [11:15]
B
Yeah, I was going to.
- [11:16]
C
I was.
- [11:16]
B
As you were saying, I was thinking about just as more and more automation, more, less and less human in the loop, so to speak speak, I feel like there's more of an opportunity for this to happen. I'm curious, you know, I'm sure, you know, this is all you guys think about. How do we solve this problem? Is something like a national digital identity verification system along the path to a solution? Or what do you think is a solution to get us to a better place, to make sure we understand who that is on the other side of a digital interaction and make sure that people are getting only what they are owed or what they are entitled to, I guess is a better way to put it.
- [11:54]
C
Yeah, I think there's a couple of different ways to look at it. I think first, where I would start is actually understanding kind of the scope of all the areas where this needs to be tackled. Everything from vital records to how our DMVs are managed to how we manage like credentials or access to people. All of that is ripe for needing to be adjusted. I actually called at the beginning of this administration for there to be a national ongoing strategy, because if you say national identity, that really doesn't go anywhere these days. But the idea is a strategy where we're basically aligning effort and resources in order to try to promote more of a collaboration, both public and private, in order to try to tackle these problems. I also think, just frankly, we need to be serious about asking the right types of questions and confirming we know or have answers to how to answer these types of questions. Asking questions such as how can I tell that it is actually you, Billy, on the other end of the screen and that you didn't actually, you aren't actually a deep fake. How can I tell that? Me, Jordan, I actually have lived in Virginia and I have lived in Virginia for a little over 10 years now. But like how can I tell that I've lived in the same residence that the people that I claim are my dependents are actually my dependents, that I have the familial relationship to them. Right. That I make the income that I claim that I do or have the access to account. Like how can I answer these questions and then do so with some type of assurance? I think these are questions we need to do better at asking and then measuring what the, like how often we get the answers to those questions. Right. Or we get them wrong. Right. And I think that in many cases, or actually I know really in many cases that has broken down year over year. Like we were talking about Measurement back in 2018, 2019 timeframe about and especially my own B days. Like what we could do better in terms of measurement, what we could do at federal agencies, what we could do nationally. I have seen very little if any progress made in actually being able to manage measure outcomes and impacts in a regard that is predictable or something that can be used to improve what's executed. I think that is what needs to change. We really have to get serious about what we're doing here.
- [14:04]
B
Yeah, no, I appreciate that. And you know, I'm curious, you know, you've been on the inside and like you mentioned your days at omb, now you're on the outside still working the same problem in a different perspective. What is it about Washington that makes it so hard to get this done? Administration change, just, you know, two party system, everyone having their different thoughts. What could it be that makes it so hard?
- [14:29]
C
You know, if I had the answer to that question, I probably wouldn't be working in tech anymore. But no, I'd. Look, I think there's this reality is that it's about aligning the stars and getting everyone on the same page of but for a moment in order to drive the change that you want to see. And far too often, and I view it as perhaps lack of education and or, or understanding on a particular topic and or the. Our kind of default, Washington's default posture of that if one person says it and Sounds like a good idea. It's probably if you're on the opposing side, it's not good to necessarily back them up. We find far too often that we like to create conflict in areas where there should be none. Like I said, I view what we need to do in identity, identity fraud, program integrity, payment integrity, all these things as bipartisan issues because no one wants to overspend taxpayer dollars. No one should want to do that. Right? No one want. Everyone wants to make sure that it is going to the right intended recipients. But then to do that, to come up with solutions where you can meet everyone on the same side or get everyone on the same page, that does mean someone is going to have to admit that there is an approach that is correct and that maybe an opposing view may not work out as well into, which means there's a compromise that ultimately has to be struck and kind of where we are today. Compromise is not something we're doing very good of in this space or very good with in this space. I would say actually look to the states in many instances. States are actually much more forward leaning in terms of striking that compromise. Whether it be in split legislatures or executive departments, et cetera. They understand the mission imperative that it is to get this right. And a lot of them are leaning in, be it blue or red state to make adjustments and improvements to their programs and invest heavily to try to solve these problems.
- [16:15]
B
Well said, Jordan. I'm thinking, you know, we want to get this done, or you know, in an ideal state, we want to get this done, but you need funding to sort of actually execute those programs on a federal agency base is one way that a lot of that gets done is through the technology modernization Fund. But we've seen some issues with that itself in its own authorization and funding of late. But tell me, you know, as we think about things like funding identity modernization programs, you know, how essential something like the TMF is and why it's necessary to have those sort of mechanisms in place to get these sort of programs up and going in government.
- [16:54]
C
It's interesting, I think I said very recently that I view the TMF as really the only scalable way to manage it at scale for the federal government. Why? Because when you're thinking of a government budget, and not that anyone should ever suffer with being a nerd in government budgeting and understanding the color of money, how money moves, what appropriation cycles look like, et cetera, the entire ecosystem was never set up to manage the flexibility and dynamic nature of technology spend to meet mission need it's very much built around the premise of I can take, you know, a preset defined amount of money, spread it out over a couple of years, and then just hope for a better outcome because I'm buying toilet paper or I'm building a bridge where some of these costs may be a little bit more fixed. With technology, things evolve, the environment changes. You talk about adding security or incorporating security from the beginning. You have to stay ahead of the existential threat coming from nation states. You can't do that under the current appropriations process. And I'm for one, one person who's tired of pretending like we can. And so for me, I view funding the tmf, scaling it, making sure that there are the right mechanisms in place to do what was intended with repayment and others so it can be used to make other types of investments. That is the only way that we're really realistically going to be able to move forward in a manner that allows us to move quickly, with agility and in a manner that, that will better serve the American public.
- [18:19]
B
Well said from someone who I think has probably experienced that sort of thing firsthand when you talk about the color money in OMB and nerding out on that stuff.
- [18:27]
A
One last thought.
- [18:28]
B
You know, you need that funding. You also need the people in place in these government agencies to get this work done. Obviously, we've seen a reduction in a lot of that key talent in the federal government over the last year. But just tell me, you know, from a workforce perspective, we've seen the tech force come about of late in some positive movement in the direction, direction of beefing up the tech talent in the federal government more so than, you know, obviously last year when it was drastically reduced. So how important is that element in making sure that this identity sort of puzzle can get solved?
- [19:03]
C
It's interesting. So look, this is probably the part of the thing where, you know, someone in my team will jump out of the closet behind me and tell me, jordan, don't go on your, your rant, your soapbox again. But here's what I, here's what I realistically say, man. The, the we need tech talent in the federal government in order to overhaul and continue to change and iterate on what is being deployed. There is nothing that gets done today in the government or even look at industry in reality is everyone has to be technically, technically proficient. That is the way everything, that's the direction that everything is moving. And so that is an area that there should be continued investment. And you know, despite what has happened with the workforce to date and there's many questions that could be asked about it. I will applaud Greg, the federal CIO and many others for launching their initiatives around the tech force in order to try to bring more talent back into government. I think the reality here is that we need to surge. We are woefully behind. We need and also need to stop thinking about just hiring tech talent is going to solve all the challenges. It is about making sure that we can also empower, clear the roadblocks and give them what they need in order to be successful so that way they're not frustrated and then leaving. Like I said, as someone who was technical, who was in government and is no longer in government, I can tell you many a days where I would wake up and say it is nigh impossible to move the boulder uphill. I would stay in for a longer period of time until my wife told me to go do something else. But in general the reality is is that a lot needs to change in the way that we're leveraging technology or thinking about technology within government. Workforce is just one one component of it and do it. If we do it right, then we basically are building the foundation to do something pretty powerful for the American people.
- [20:49]
B
Very well said Jordan. Really appreciate the time. Always a very insightful guest and lots to learn from you. So I really appreciate it. Hope we can chat again soon.
- [20:59]
C
Yeah, I appreciate it Billy. Thanks for having me.
- [21:01]
A
For more on digital identity, make sure to visit fedscoop.com.
- [21:08]
B
Thanks so much for tuning in to another episode of the.
- [21:10]
A
Daily Scoop Podcast, available on all podcast platforms. If you've already rated the podcast on your platform of choice, thanks so much.
- [21:17]
B
High ratings and good reviews of the show help more people to find it. The Daily Scoop Podcast is a production of the Scoop News Group in Washington, dc. Adam Butler and Carlin Fisher help put the show together and the entire Scoop News Group team contributes.
- [21:31]
A
We'll be back tomorrow with more top headlines. Until then, I'm your host. As always, Billy Mitchell. Thanks so much for listening.