DOGE Affiliate Sought College Credits for Government Work

The Unusual Request

According to new documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, Christopher Sweet, an affiliate of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), sought college credit for his time working at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sweet, a University of Chicago undergraduate, was part of DOGE's initiative to use artificial intelligence to identify and rescind outdated federal regulations.

His request centered on framing his work as an independent study worth three college credits. Emails between Sweet and Scott Langmack, another DOGE affiliate at HUD, indicate that the effort was meant to align his real-world contributions with academic requirements—something that's far from standard practice for government roles.

"These documents raise serious concerns about how one of DOGE's unqualified employees has been entrusted to handle legal work, rewriting rules and regulations that affect millions of Americans, while attempting to count this work toward an undergraduate degree," said Daniel McGrath, special counsel for oversight at Democracy Forward.

What Was Sweet Doing?

Sweet joined HUD in the spring of 2025 as a college student, working on a project called SweetRex. This AI tool was designed to crawl through federal regulations and flag those that should be repealed—essentially streamlining government operations by identifying outdated rules.

The project was part of DOGE's broader mission to reduce federal bureaucracy through technology. But as the documents show, Sweet wasn't just doing routine work—he was contributing to a tool that had real-world applications across multiple federal agencies.

Langmack, who came from Kukun—a property technology company focused on aggregating hard-to-find data—helped develop the proposal for Sweet's academic credit. In an August 2025 email, Langmack wrote that he had created the outline for Sweet's coursework using ChatGPT, highlighting the unusual blend of AI and academia in this case.

A Controversial Approach to Reform

This arrangement raises questions about how government agencies are being used as academic laboratories. Sweet's project wasn't a traditional internship—it was described as “graduate-level, multi-disciplinary research producing real-world outputs that are already influencing federal regulatory reform.”

While the idea of using AI to streamline regulations has merit, the attempt to integrate this work into a college curriculum blurs professional and academic boundaries. It also suggests a lack of oversight in how government roles are being filled by individuals without prior experience or formal training.

The University of Chicago did not respond to requests for comment, though it confirmed that Sweet graduated with a degree in economics this June. Whether his time at HUD contributed to that degree remains unclear.

What This Means for Government Accountability

This case underscores the risks associated with politicized government agencies like DOGE. As the Trump-Vance administration pushes forward with deregulation efforts, these cases reveal a troubling pattern: individuals without proper credentials are being placed in influential positions that affect public policy and safety.

By trying to credit government work toward an academic degree, this arrangement creates a potential conflict of interest. If such practices become normalized, it could lead to a situation where political agendas take precedence over professional competence and public accountability.

The use of AI tools like ChatGPT in drafting academic proposals further complicates the narrative. While automation can enhance efficiency, it also risks depersonalizing critical decision-making processes that should involve human judgment and institutional oversight.

A Larger Pattern?

This case isn't isolated. It reflects a growing trend of government agencies operating with minimal oversight, often under the guise of innovation or reform. DOGE's activities have been scrutinized for their lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest.

As more students and young professionals seek roles in government that offer both practical experience and academic benefits, we must ask: How do we ensure accountability while encouraging public service?

It's clear that the current approach—blending political ambition with academic pursuits—requires a more nuanced understanding of how these institutions function. Without proper checks and balances, even well-intentioned reforms can lead to unintended consequences.

The Future of Public Service

For those involved in government reform or public service, Sweet's story serves as a cautionary tale. It highlights the importance of maintaining professional standards and clear boundaries between academic institutions and government agencies.

We must also consider how to better integrate real-world experience into education without compromising the integrity of either system. The goal should be to create meaningful opportunities for young professionals while safeguarding the public interest.

As we continue to navigate a rapidly evolving landscape where technology intersects with governance, stories like this one remind us that careful scrutiny is essential—not just for the work being done, but for how it's framed and legitimized.