Opinion: Reinventing Government or Executive Overreach? Examining DOGE
By Avery Sneed ‘27
Introducing DOGE
The first month of the second Trump administration has attracted considerable attention within the American political and legal spheres. As the administration moves quickly to expand executive authority, several constitutional issues have emerged. One of the most contentious is the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an agency designed to streamline federal operations and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies. Led by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE has become a focal point of debate, with critics raising concerns that its very existence infringes upon congressional authority and consolidates too much power within the executive branch. While the administration emphasizes Musk's business expertise as a valuable asset in modernizing government operations, legal scholars and lawmakers from both parties have voiced significant concerns about the constitutionality of DOGE’s broad mandate. These concerns include DOGE’s authority to shut down agencies, such as USAID, its unfettered access to federal data, and the complete absence of congressional oversight in its establishment. As Musk and DOGE push forward with their efforts to dismantle elements of the federal bureaucracy, the courts must decide whether this broad expansion of executive power will be allowed to continue.
DOGE in Action: Reshaping Government Oversight
On January 25th, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14158, which officially established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This order cleverly restructured the U.S. Digital Service as DOGE, positioning it within the Executive Office of the President. DOGE’s primary objective, as outlined in the order, is to streamline and modernize federal technology and software to maximize government efficiency. The order, taking advantage of the official capacities of the former U.S. Digital Service, grants DOGE “full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems” to fulfill its duties.
In order to streamline operations and curb inefficiencies, DOGE has embedded “DOGE Teams” within all federal agencies. Each team, composed of a team lead, an engineer, HR specialist, and an attorney- oversees agency spending, upholds accountability, and works to ensure transparency. Agency heads, working with DOGE teams, are required to implement centralized tracking of contracts, grants, and federally funded travel expenditures, with monthly reports submitted to the DOGE administrator. While certain exemptions apply for law enforcement and national security purposes, proponents argue this system will enhance efficiency, reduce redundancies, and enforce fiscal responsibility across the bureaucracy.
Who’s Got the Power?
Presidents have historically sought to reform the federal bureaucracy to align with their policy priorities. Executive orders and agency directives have frequently been used to establish commissions, task forces, and restructure agencies. However, the creation of a new executive agency with extensive authority, like DOGE, is problematic without congressional approval. Article II of the Constitution grants the president the power to execute laws and manage the executive branch, but it does not grant the president unilateral authority to create new agencies. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the authority to establish agencies as lying with Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause, which authorizes it to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers… and all other powers vested by this Constitution."
Previous attempts to reform the bureaucracy, such as Ronald Reagan’s Grace Commission or Trump’s first-term civil service reforms, operated within the framework of congressional oversight. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides clear guidelines for the creation and operation of agencies. DOGE’s formation represents a clear violation of these standards, as it was created without legislative approval or oversight, and it grants Musk significant control over government operations despite his lack of Senate confirmation or official appointment within the executive branch.
Separation of Powers: A Constitutional Issue
The most significant legal challenge to DOGE revolves around the principle of separation of powers. Established legal precedents make it clear that DOGE’s creation and operation exceed executive authority. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court ruled that President Truman did not have the unilateral power to seize steel mills during wartime, reinforcing the idea that presidential actions must align with Congressional authorization. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, stated, "The President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker." Applying this precedent, there is a strong case to be made that DOGE represents an unconstitutional expansion of executive power. In response, the Trump administration has defended DOGE as a necessary measure to eliminate inefficiencies and address systemic issues within the federal bureaucracy.
Responses to DOGE
Legal challenges to DOGE have already emerged. In a lawsuit filed by 19 state attorneys general, including North Carolina’s Jeff Jackson, a federal judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction on February 21, blocking DOGE from accessing Treasury Department payment systems. U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas had previously extended a temporary restraining order preventing DOGE employees from handling sensitive financial data. Under her latest order, Judge Vargas has prohibited "any employee, officer, or contractor employed or affiliated with the United States DOGE Service, DOGE, or the DOGE Team established at the Treasury Department" from accessing confidential information. Additionally, the judge has directed the Treasury Department to submit a report detailing DOGE staff members’ vetting, training, and security clearance by March 24, at which point the injunction will be reassessed.
Implications for the Future
The creation of DOGE represents a crucial moment in American governance. This agency’s establishment is not just a questionable exercise of executive power—it may represent a clear violation of the Constitution. Courts must take decisive action to determine whether DOGE aligns with constitutional limitations. The upcoming legal challenges will determine whether the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land or whether executive overreach will be allowed to continue unchecked. The rule of law is at stake, and lawmakers and judges must ensure its preservation before it is too late.
Avery Sneed is a sophomore majoring in political science.
Sources
Executive Order 14158—Establishing and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency." (2025, January 20).
Holston, Kenny (2025). Elon Musk will be the sole leader of the Department of Government Efficiency after Vivek Ramaswamy bowed out of the project to run for governor of Ohio. [Photograph]. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/21/us/politics/doge-government-efficiency-trump-musk.html
Members of the Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
Popli, Nick. Here's What DOGE Is Doing Across the Federal Government. Time. (2025, February 14). https://time.com/7222251/doge-musk-federal-workers-government/
State of New York, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, No. 25-CV-01144, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2025
U.S. Const. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: Necessary and proper clause. Congress.gov. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-1/ALDE_00001242/
U.S. Const. Article II, Section 2, Clause 3: Advice and consent of the Senate. Congress.gov. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-6/ALDE_00000012/
U.S. Const. Article II, Section 2, Clause 3: Recess appointments. Congress.gov. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-7/ALDE_00013097/
Weissner, D., & Cohen, L. (2025, February 21). Judge extends block on Musk’s DOGE from Treasury systems. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-extends-block-musks-doge-treasury-systems-2025-02-21/
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/343us579
