Is the U.S government really paying for 11,020 unused Adobe licences?

A recent claim has gained traction on social media, alleging that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been spending taxpayer money on thousands of unused software licenses, specifically 11,020 Adobe Acrobat licenses with no assigned users. The claim stems from a report by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative, which aims to reduce government waste. But is this allegation true?

Background of the Allegation

The claim originated from an internal audit conducted under Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a newly proposed oversight body meant to scrutinize government spending. According to the report, HUD had purchased 11,020 Adobe Acrobat licenses but had failed to assign them to any active users, leading to wasteful expenditure.

Following the report’s release, social media exploded with criticism, with many arguing that this was another example of government mismanagement. Some even claimed that this could point to deeper inefficiencies or corruption.

But does the evidence support these claims?

Examining the Evidence

1. The Source of the Claim: Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

First, let’s examine DOGE itself. Despite the humorous acronym referring to the popular meme cryptocurrency, DOGE is not an official government agency. Rather, it is an independent advisory body proposed by Elon Musk to improve government accountability. However, it lacks formal oversight authority, and its reports are not legally binding.

The report in question was leaked to the media, but its findings have not been independently verified by any government accountability office. This raises concerns about potential bias, data accuracy, and political motivations behind the claim.

2. Are the 11,020 Licenses Really Unused?

The DOGE report claims that HUD had paid for 11,020 Adobe Acrobat licenses but did not assign them to any users. A check of federal procurement databases reveals:

• HUD does have an active contract with Adobe for software services.
• However, not all purchased licenses need to be assigned immediately. Large government agencies often procure bulk licenses in advance to account for future staffing changes, project needs, and system upgrades.

• Internal IT records indicate that some of these licenses were reserved for future use, while others were part of an enterprise package deal.

A former HUD procurement officer explained:

“In government procurement, it’s common to purchase software in bulk. If you buy licenses individually, you pay more per unit. A bulk purchase can secure long-term savings, even if not all licenses are assigned immediately.”

Thus, while it is true that some licenses were unused at the time of the audit, this does not automatically mean they were wasteful purchases.

3. What Does HUD Say?

HUD has publicly responded to the allegation, stating:

“The department procured Adobe licenses as part of a long-term contract to meet evolving IT needs. Some licenses were in transition due to workforce shifts, and others were procured in anticipation of future projects.”

This suggests that HUD did not necessarily waste taxpayer money but was instead making strategic IT purchases.

Read the rest of the article at: https://easysam.co.uk/news/is-the-u-s-government-really-paying-for-11020-unused-adobe-licences/