The Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, has ignited controversy by placing numerous federal officials on leave and gaining access to sensitive federal payment systems. This initiative has raised questions about the legality of DOGE’s actions, particularly regarding its authority to downsize or eliminate agencies that Congress has established and funded.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed strong concerns about DOGE’s legitimacy on February 3, 2025, declaring it an "unelected shadow government" conducting a "hostile takeover" of federal operations. Schumer emphasized that DOGE lacks the legal authority to make spending decisions or shut down programs, stating that its conduct cannot be permitted to continue. His remarks came after DOGE’s establishment through an executive order on January 20, 2025, which set the agency’s operations to cease by July 4, 2026.
Legal experts have voiced skepticism about DOGE’s authority, asserting that the executive branch cannot unilaterally override congressional appropriations. According to constitutional law, only Congress has the power to allocate funds, as enshrined in Article 1 of the Constitution. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 further restricts the executive branch from canceling appropriated funds without congressional approval. Michael Gerhardt, a law professor, stated, "The president does not have unilateral authority to shut down an expenditure… without the authorization of Congress."
The White House, responding to inquiries about DOGE’s constitutional standing, did not cite specific laws or provisions but claimed that those involved are acting within the framework of federal law and appropriate security clearances. However, the lack of transparency surrounding DOGE’s budget and staffing has fueled criticism.
Musk, identified as a "special government employee," operates under a category that allows for limited government service without full-time commitment. His involvement raises ethical questions, especially given that his companies have secured significant government contracts exceeding $15 billion in recent years.
Experts warn that DOGE’s aggressive actions, including proposed cuts to federal programs and potential agency closures, may not withstand judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court has historically upheld congressional authority over budgetary matters, and any unilateral moves by the executive branch could face legal challenges.
Congress retains the power to intervene, with the ability to pass legislation that could restrict DOGE’s operations. However, there appears to be a lack of urgency among lawmakers to confront this issue. Some Republican senators have acknowledged the potential unconstitutionality of DOGE’s actions but have not taken significant steps to challenge them.
As the situation unfolds, the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch hangs in the balance, with legal experts cautioning that inaction could set a concerning precedent for future administrations. The ongoing debate over DOGE’s legitimacy and authority is likely to shape discussions about the role of government and the limits of executive power in the coming months.