DOGE Used AI for Housing Policy, Then Denied Records Requests

The DOGE initiative at HUD represents an early example of artificial intelligence being deployed directly into federal policymaking. Christopher Sweet, a recent economics graduate from the University of Chicago, led efforts to use AI to flag regulations for potential rescission, while Scott Langmack, from a property technology startup, brought similar technical expertise. Both have since moved to higher positions in the executive branch—Langmack is now the executive director of deregulation AI at the Office of Management and Budget—suggesting that the use of AI in government policy is expanding beyond HUD.

The agency's refusal to release detailed records about how AI informed specific decisions creates a transparency gap at a critical moment. Legal experts and nonprofit organizations argue that because AI systems demonstrably hallucinate, exhibit bias, and produce errors, the public needs visibility into how these tools shaped policy outcomes that affect millions of people. The government's citation of exemptions that do not exist under the Freedom of Information Act—such as "deliberative AI input"—suggests either confusion about how existing privileges apply to AI-assisted work or an attempt to shield the AI use from scrutiny. Mark Fagan, a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School, acknowledges that some deliberative AI use (such as exploring how other agencies handled similar problems) may not warrant full disclosure, but he also argues that indicating when AI was used in policy assessment would be good protocol at this stage of government AI adoption to build public confidence.