On February 10, employees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received an email requesting a list of all contracts and their significance to the agency, including any components related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This email was sent by Scott Langmack, a senior adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), who also serves as chief operating officer at Kukun, a property technology firm focusing on data aggregation.
Langmack’s position could pose a conflict of interest due to his access to sensitive HUD systems, including one that monitors billions of dollars in expenditures. Another DOGE member is Michael Mirski, associated with TCC Management, which operates mobile home parks across the U.S. Mirski’s educational background from the Wharton School emphasizes data collection as a key takeaway, further underscoring the potential threat posed by their access to HUD’s data.
Together, Langmack and Mirski have access to several critical HUD systems, raising concerns about privacy violations and conflicts of interest. Their roles provide insights that could significantly impact the real estate market by allowing them to utilize vast amounts of sensitive data, from individual public housing voucher holders’ identities to information about hospitals and nursing homes financed through HUD.
Kukun seeks to leverage predictive analytics for future property investments by utilizing automated valuation models. The concern here is the privileged information these DOGE operatives could exploit. For example, HUD employees typically require stringent approvals to access systems like LOCCS, which manages substantial grant disbursements, yet Langmack and Mirski possess more extensive access, theoretically circumventing typical security protocols.
The implications are profound: access to sensitive systems might not only violate privacy but also foster conditions ripe for insider trading, especially with the notable intersection of HUD’s oversight of the mobile home sector—where TCC Management is entrenched.
With personnel reductions looming at HUD—where reports suggest up to half the workforce may be cut—the influence of these DOGE staffers and their potential conflicts heighten concerns about the future of HUD’s mission, which is fundamentally about providing stability against market fluctuations through initiatives like the Section 8 housing program.
As government employees call attention to privacy and procedural integrity, the situation at HUD illustrates the need for vigilance when private sector interests converge with governmental responsibilities.
