Fraudulent activities in federal spending costs every one of the 132 million U.S. households $140,000 or more over their lifetimes, according to an April 14 Just Facts analysis of Government Accounting Office (GAO) data, but the actual total will be much higher once Washington’s waste, plus state and local government losses, are known.

“In 2024, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published ‘reliable estimates of fraud losses affecting the federal government’ for the first time in U.S. history. The study ‘estimated total direct annual financial losses to the government from fraud to be between $233 billion and $521 billion, based on data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022,’” the Just Facts analysis stated.

“Given that there are 132 million households in the U.S., the average annual cost to each U.S. household of fraud in the federal government is about $1,800 to $3,900 per year. Over the average U.S. lifespan of 78 years, this amounts to a cost of $140,000 to $300,000 per household. These figures don’t include federal waste and abuse, state and local government fraud, or federal tax fraud and noncompliance, which amount to another $275,000 per household,” Just Facts continued.

The GAO analysis represented a broad estimate because so much fraud in federal spending goes undetected, despite the presence of literally thousands of auditors and investigators working for the 72 Inspectors General (IG) that are devoted entirely to ferreting out such problems.

The actual total for U.S. households is much higher, thanks to the current inability to include losses to waste in federal spending such as paying more than necessary for products such as office equipment, building maintenance, and related expenditures, as well as losses associated with improper payments such as Social Security benefits being paid to dead recipients and Medicare benefits being paid for non-existent patients.

“Improper payment estimates are based on a subset of federal programs, using a methodology not designed to identify fraud. GAO has also consistently reported that the federal government does not know the full extent of improper payments and has long recommended that agencies improve their improper payment reporting. In contrast, GAO’s fraud estimate includes all federal programs and operations and is based on fraud-related data,” the GAO analysis explained.

Losses due to state and municipal government administration of federal programs have become a major national focus in recent months after independent investigative reporting by independent journalist Nick Shirley exposed billions of dollars in fraudulent and wasteful spending in social welfare programs.

“In Minnesota alone, Medicaid fraud could total billions. Nearly 9% of food stamp spending is in error, and scams like Feeding Our Future stole nearly $250 million intended for needy children,” the White House said in a March 16, 2026, statement regarding President Donald Trump’s establishment of a new task force to address the problem. The new entity is headed by Vice President J.D. Vance.

“Hundreds of millions in federal childcare funding were stolen by an organized ring involving Somali immigrants, spent to purchase cars, property, and luxury travel, and even allegedly funneled to one of Africa’s most heinous terror groups — all while State officials ignored or failed to detect the fraud. There is strong reason to believe similar vulnerabilities exist in California, Illinois, New York, Maine, and Colorado, where insufficient safeguards and weak oversight increase the risk of large-scale fraud,” the White House statement said.

Further complicating efforts to quantify the actual total of losses to waste and fraud resulting from state and municipal government administration of federal spending programs, according to the White House, is the refusal of 21 states to allow Washington officials to examine whether enrollees actually meet eligibility requirements to receive benefits paid by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Those 21 states are challenging the federal government’s authority to perform such an examination.

Chicago-based Truth in Accounting (TIA) founder and CEO Sheila Weinberg agreed that quantifying state and local losses is exceptionally difficult. She encouraged Washington Stand readers to become familiar with “the federal Single Audit database (https://app.fac.gov/dissemination/search/). This includes audits of entities that receive federal funding, including states, cities, and local agencies. Within those reports, you’ll find disclosures of material weaknesses, significant deficiencies, and instances of noncompliance. While these do not quantify fraud or waste directly, they can highlight control breakdowns and oversight gaps that create conditions where misuse of funds is more likely.”

Weinberg also commended the site because it “lists the organizations receiving federal funds, along with their locations. In our experience, reviewing these entities and even mapping them can help readers better understand where funds are flowing and raise useful questions about how programs are administered on the ground.”

In addition to the newly formed anti-fraud task force under Vance, Trump also recently directed the consolidation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) of all anti-fraud investigations and prosecutions under the Assistant Attorney General for Fraud Enforcement. Trump appointed former federal prosecutor Colin MacDonald to the position, and the Senate confirmed him last month.

Just Facts founder James Agresti was asked by The Washington Stand about his assessment of the effectiveness of the Trump anti-fraud initiatives. “The second Trump administration seems to be more focused on rooting out fraud than any other administration I’ve observed in three decades of conducting policy analyses, but I haven’t yet seen enough hard data to know if these efforts have been effective,” Agresti responded.

The name of Agresti’s organization reflects that its research is rigorously based on raw data, primary sources, thorough documentation, and multiple source documentation to ensure its analyses reflect facts on the ground rather than ideological biases or special interest considerations.