DOGE's AI tool misreads law, still tasked with deleting half of US regulations

[midian182]

A hot potato: Elon Musk may have long departed the Department of Government Efficiency, but DOGE is still causing controversy. A new report claims that the agency is using a new artificial intelligence tool to create a list of federal regulations that will be deleted. The goal is for 50% of regulations to be eliminated before the anniversary of President Trump's inauguration.

The Doge AI Deregulation Decision Tool will be analyzing around 200,000 federal regulations, according to the Washington Post, which cites documents it obtained and four government officials.

According to a PowerPoint presentation outlining the plans, around 100,000 of these rules would be deemed worthy of deletion.

The tool has already been used to make decisions on 1,083 regulatory sections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in under two weeks. Three employees from the agency said it has been used recently to review hundreds, if not more than 1,000, lines of regulation.

There are dangers that come with using AI for these sorts of tasks, of course. One HUD employee said that the tool made several errors, and it claimed those who had drafted various agency regulations misunderstood the law in several places. In reality, the AI had iteself misunderstood the complex language.

The system has also been used by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to write "100% of deregulations."

An extract from the PowerPoint presentation

The presentation includes a timeline in which agencies have until September 1 to use the tool to create their own list of regulations for erasure. After which, "DOGE will roll-up a delete list of 50% of all Federal Regulations (100k Regulatory Rules)."

One of Trump's campaign promises was an aggressive reduction in regulations, which he said were driving up the cost of goods. DOGE's presentation claims that complying with these rules costs $3.1 trillion per year, and that using the AI tool to slash 50% of all regulations will save $1.5 trillion annually, unlock $600 billion in investment, increase US sales revenue by $1.1 trillion, and cut the federal budget by $85 billion.

When asked about the use of AI for the deregulation process, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said "all options are being explored" to achieve Trump's promises. He added that the work was in the early stages and "no single plan has been approved or green-lit."

DOGE has embraced AI since the agency's inception. It announced an "AI-first" strategy in February, started embedding the technology across multiple government brances in March, and rolled out its custom AI chatbot (often referred to as GSAi) to 1,500 GSA employees in March.

I'm officially out of that office.

Can't say too much yet, Appreciate everyone who's reached out. Feels good to finally breathe again… Time to shift priorities and run a meatballs coin scam.

but I'll make a post explaining what happened soon.#Bigballsout

– Edward Coristine (@EdwardCoristine) June 24, 2025

DOGE has not only proved controversial over its actions – and the fact it had been led by Elon Musk – but also its tendency to hire very young employees. One of these was Edward "Big Balls" Coristine, who has what one could generously call a colorful history. Coristine left DOGE last month.

Permalink to story:

DOGE's AI tool misreads law, still tasked with deleting half of US regulations

 

[yRaz]

You have to be careful when deregulating. As someone who works in commercial construction I have to deal with LOTS of regulations and many of them benefits and contributes nothing to anyone. However, there are regulations that people hate but is in place for a reason, like wearing a mask when using a concrete saw to prevent silicosis or wearing pants and a long sleeve shirt when working with hazard chemicals even if it's hot out.

However, things like minimum lot size do nothing but increase the cost of homes, prevent more from being built and prevent things like demolishing old homes and building multi family units on said property. The amount of homes that cannot be issued occupancy permits in Pittsburgh is absurd, but noone wants to buy the lot because they aren't allowed to demolish the old homes and build a new one due to minimum lot size regulations. Because of that, we have neighborhoods in Pittsburgh filled with dilapidated homes noone can live in

 

[axiomatic13]

It will take decades to undo all the damage DOGE has done.

 

[SRB]

It will take decades to undo all the damage DOGE has done.

How long will it take to undo the damage that self serving politicians have built into the government over that last hundred years? Almost every one done "For our own good".

 

[NotYourITguy]

However, things like minimum lot size do nothing but increase the cost of homes, prevent more from being built and prevent things like demolishing old homes and building multi family units on said property.

Opinions like this are exactly why such regulations are needed in the first place. Lots of people want more land and more space between their homes and their neighbors. Making everywhere a crowded metropolitan area is an awful way to live. We need more farm land and urban sprawl to limit the plague of noise and light pollution that cities bring.

 

[pnntmp]

50% is a disappointingly low target.

I was hoping for 70-80%.

 

[trieste1s]

Opinions like this are exactly why such regulations are needed in the first place. Lots of people want more land and more space between their homes and their neighbors. Making everywhere a crowded metropolitan area is an awful way to live. We need more farm land and urban sprawl to limit the plague of noise and light pollution that cities bring.

And then bulldoze all the nice things to build parking lots, and more cars, thus making the cities noisier and more polluted. Plus the gargantuan cost of maintaining all that asphalt, bankrupting cities. In general, cities aren't noisy, cars are noisy. And living in close spaces is no problem if the noise-culprits understand that the alternative is to have much less space in prison.

 

[NotYourITguy]

And then bulldoze all the nice things to build parking lots, and more cars, thus making the cities noisier and more polluted. Plus the gargantuan cost of maintaining all that asphalt, bankrupting cities. In general, cities aren't noisy, cars are noisy. And living in close spaces is no problem if the noise-culprits understand that the alternative is to have much less space in prison.

Just skip the intermediary steps and ban cities all together. You're trying to band-aid the problems instead of addressing the root problem. Dense urban areas are awful to live in if you want peace and quiet away from other people. There aren't any major cities on the planet that offer sustainable agriculture and the ability to see the night sky unobstructed by light pollution.

 

[yRaz]

Opinions like this are exactly why such regulations are needed in the first place. Lots of people want more land and more space between their homes and their neighbors. Making everywhere a crowded metropolitan area is an awful way to live. We need more farm land and urban sprawl to limit the plague of noise and light pollution that cities bring.

I'm confused, I deal with building permits not being issued on current lots because they don't meet the minimum lot size in town. The thing is, the house that needs demolished is already IN TOWN. So the idea that we can't demolish unoppcupied homes IN TOWN and build multi family units on said lot is absurd to me, Frankly, the idea that we have empty lots that noone is allowed to occupy IN TOWN is absurd to me.

So, please, elaborate on your suburban propaganda. May I ask, are you part of an HOA an perhaps a board member?

 

[NotYourITguy]

I'm confused, I deal with building permits not being issued on current lots because they don't meet the minimum lot size in town. The thing is, the house that needs demolished is already IN TOWN. So the idea that we can't demolish unoppcupied homes IN TOWN and build multi family units on said lot is absurd to me, Frankly, the idea that we have empty lots that noone is allowed to occupy IN TOWN is absurd to me.

So, please, elaborate on your suburban propaganda. May I ask, are you part of an HOA an perhaps a board member?

To be clear, I am not a fan of surburbia either but I do find there are far fewer regulations involved the lower the population density becomes.

My property borders federally protected lands and eventually my estate will be donated to the park. It's the most opposite of city there can be and it's how I like it.

 

[yRaz]

To be clear, I am not a fan of surburbia either but I do find there are far fewer regulations involved the lower the population density becomes.

My property borders federally protected lands and eventually my estate will be donated to the park. It's the most opposite of city there can be and it's how I like it.

So we have a neighborhood in Pittsburgh called Homewood. It's filled with homes with asbestos and lead paint and the city wont issue occupancy permits because of it. However, the size of the lots, which homes are already sitting on, cannot be demolished and rebuilt do to a 1983 law that defined minimum lot size. Not only is it a square footage issue, they defined dimensions. so we have entire neighborhoods where the homes could be demolished, but we cant rebuild an identical one because of the defined lot size. Keep in mind, we could build 3-5 homes on each one of these lots, but this regulation prevents us from building even one.

So in the middle of a housing crisis I become incredibly frustrated by nonsense like this.

 

[SRB]

So we have a neighborhood in Pittsburgh called Homewood. It's filled with homes with asbestos and lead paint and the city wont issue occupancy permits because of it. However, the size of the lots, which homes are already sitting on, cannot be demolished and rebuilt do to a 1983 law that defined minimum lot size. Not only is it a square footage issue, they defined dimensions. so we have entire neighborhoods where the homes could be demolished, but we cant rebuild an identical one because of the defined lot size. Keep in mind, we could build 3-5 homes on each one of these lots, but this regulation prevents us from building even one.

So in the middle of a housing crisis I become incredibly frustrated by nonsense like this.

A house lasts a lifetime, a regulation lasts forever.