There has been a lot of uneducated debate on the legitimacy of President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the effort headed by Elon Musk. As those who see their seats at the taxpayer-funded government feedthrough threatened and panic about having to do without out, the idea that the new entity is illegitimate needs to be laid to rest. It is.
Recently, 14 state attorneys general were denied their request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to obstruct Musk’s DOGE efforts, claiming that eliminating waste and fraudulent spending in the many federal agencies and departments would cause “harm” to their states. Ironically, it was US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the same judge who presided over the criminal investigation into Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, who ruled against them.
As FOX News' Breanne Deppisch reported:
“Plaintiffs argued that the leadership role held by Musk, a private citizen, represents an ‘unlawful delegation of executive power’ and threatened what they described as ‘widespread disruption’ to employees working across various federal agencies and government contractors.
“‘There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual,’ said the lawsuit, filed by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez.
“Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington also joined him in the request.”
Chunkin was correct in denying the attorney generals their TRO, but not for the reasons she stated, which centered on proving “irreparable harm.” Instead, the denial—which should have been dismissed with prejudice—should have centered on the fact that DOGE exists as a re-purposed department already codified by Congress.
The DOGE effort under the Trump administration is, indeed, a re-purposed version of an initiative initially established during the Obama administration.
The Obama administration created the United States Digital Service (USDS) in 2014 to improve government technology and address issues like the HealthCare.gov rollout. The Trump administration rebranded and expanded this effort into what is now known as the DOGE, which focuses on government efficiency, cutting waste, and modernizing federal technology.
DOGE, like other government initiatives, has a legal basis for operating with that basis rooted in executive authority and existing budgetary approval through discretionary spending.
The President has the constitutional authority to issue Executive Orders to establish or direct the operations of initiatives such as those tasked to Musk through DOGE. Executive orders do not require congressional approval and can be used to set policy and/or reorganize federal agencies or offices.
Further, the Constitution grants the President broad executive authority to reorganize and manage the Executive Branch as deemed necessary for the efficient operation of the government. This includes creating, rebranding, or repurposing offices or initiatives like DOGE.
Regarding funding sources, DOGE service falls under the Executive Office of the Presidental Budget, and its fiscal year 2025 budget is available for DOGE activities. This budget typically covers staff salaries, technology, and advisory initiatives. Further, agencies hosting DOGE teams can redirect portions of their discretionary funds (Departmental Expenditure Limits, or DELs) to support embedded personnel or system upgrades, as suggested by the framework for efficiency initiatives.
Therefore, DOGE does not require new legislation for its operations. It operates under the existing legal framework that supported its predecessor, the US Digital Service, codified by executive actions and legislation pertaining to government efficiency and technology.
For DOGE operations to be considered unconstitutional, several scenarios or arguments would have to be satisfied before judicial interference would be constitutionally appropriate:
If DOGE were to execute functions explicitly reserved for Congress or the judiciary, like making laws or adjudicating disputes, it might be seen as an overreach, violating the Separation of Powers principle. However, as DOGE is narrowly tasked with seeking out waste, fraud, and spendthrift expenditures, neither of these lines in the sand has been crossed.
If DOGE were to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress, it could violate the Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution, which states that “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” As DOGE operates exclusively under the fiscal umbrella of discretionary spending, this red line has not been approached.
If DOGE's actions led to the deprivation of rights without due process (e.g. if it implemented policies or technology that affected individuals’ constitutional rights without providing a fair hearing or legal recourse, this could be challenged under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments. Since DOGE is tasked with ferreting out waste and fraud that exists as an abuse of taxpayer dollars (i.e., abuse of power), no encroachment into federal employee rights can be recognized. As federal employees under the Executive Branch serve at the “pleasure of the President,” redundancy terminations and employment separations for an employee's lack of fidelity to presidential directives fall well within the President’s purview.
If DOGE were to engage in surveillance or data collection practices that infringed upon citizens' privacy without proper legal justification or oversight, this could be seen as violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Since DOGE is simply claiming its right to existing data, there is no “surveillance” or “data collection,” making this point moot.
If DOGE's operations included censorship or content control in a way that impinged on free speech, this would be a significant constitutional concern. With DOGE being a “transparency effort,” this issue is also moot.
Should DOGE implement policies or use technology in a discriminatory manner, this could be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, suggesting that individuals are not being treated equally under the law based on race, religion, gender, or other protected classes. Again, because the DOGE effort is to root out waste, spendthrift monetary practices, and grift, the effort is not identity-driven, rendering this go-to favorite of the radical Left nothing more than a hollow claim.
Lastly, if the initiative were seen as an attempt by the Executive Branch to bypass legislative processes or create de facto laws or regulations without congressional approval, it could be argued that this was an unconstitutional expansion of executive power. Yet, because the DOGE effort is rooted in eliminating existing waste, fraud, and corruption, the actions that result are not legislative or regulatory. They are operational and fall squarely within the executive purview.
For any of these scenarios to lead to a finding of unconstitutionality, DOGE would need to take specific actions or create specific policies that clearly violate constitutional principles. No argument has been levied to make any of these charges. Any legal challenge requires evidence that DOGE's actions go beyond the Executive Branch's constitutional authority or infringe upon individual constitutional rights. That threshold isn’t even in the room.
So, yes, Virginia, there is a legal and constitutional basis for DOGE to both exist and operate, much to the chagrin of the Deep State spendthrift swampateers in Washington, DC, and beyond.
Carry on, Elon. You are providing an incredible service to your adopted country, and I, for one, am thankful.
Funny. In the end, landing a man on Mars may prove easier for Musk than expunging corruption and fraud from the federal government. Who would have thought?!
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
The Ideological Left’s Deep State ‘Sleeper Cells’
I wanted to touch on why it is so critically important to maintain the hunt for the ideological “sleeper cells” embedded in federal agencies and departments in pursuit of reform.
Two recent stories validate my contention that every agency and department under the Executive Branch—including the lesser White House and Executive Office staff—must be rid of any previously appointed careerists and especially any “holdovers” from Democratic administrations. Anyone who received their positions during the Clinton, Obama, or Biden administrations must be released from service.
The first example comes in the removal of Michelle King, who was serving as acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, right up until it was discovered that she was stonewalling a DOGE investigation into massive fraud within the agency. King spent several decades at the agency before being named its acting commissioner last month.
This comes as reports surface that $71.8 billion in improper Social Security payments were made between 2015 and 2022 alone.
And the second example comes in the resignation of senior US prosecutor Denise Cheung, who quit after being ordered to issue grand jury subpoenas to determine whether “a contract had been unlawfully awarded.” Cheung’s refusal to execute a prosecutorial order from her superiors—who determined the need for the action—exists as a usurpation of acting DC US attorney Ed Martin’s legitimate authority.
The grand jury sought by Martin was to determine criminal culpability in the Biden administration’s awarding of billions in environmental grants immediately before President Trump re-entered the White House.
The Deep State uniparty rot permeates the Executive Branch agencies and departments, requiring a massive culling of the herd to ensure that the shadow governments of the past don’t simply “run out the clock” on the Trump administration while providing operation life support to the elements of corruption that the American people mandated Mr. Trump eliminate.
Quite frankly, an exact replica of the DOGE effort currently underway in the Executive Branch must be executed in the Legislative and Judicial Branches of our federal government if we are to fully exterminate the roach operative of the status quo Deep State. The obstacle to that becoming a reality is the lack of will to do so. Finding a set of balls where reformative action is concerned on Capitol Hill or across the street at the US Supreme Court—rhetorically speaking, of course—is like finding a drinking fountain on the face of the Sun.
Before I go, I wanted to address the cultural Stockholm Syndrome emerging in people’s almost pre-programmed criticism of Elon Musk and the job he is doing with DOGE.
Recently, a few usually reasonable people have floated the propaganda that Elon Musk is executing his efforts with DOGE to benefit himself personally. A more ridiculous statement is seldom heard.
A person who is manipulating his or her position to benefit themselves wouldn’t stand silently next to a United States President while he bashed the very products and industry that you own and that brings you the wealth you’ve earned. This is the case with Musk: He stood silently as Trump brutally bashed the EV industry.
Further, it is not self-beneficial when politically motivated prosecutorial misconduct in the form of investigations and tax probes is ceased in the name of lawfulness, which is also the case. The DoJ has terminated investigations started under the Biden administration after Musk aligned with Trump because they were both politically motivated and illegitimate.
The fact of the matter is this. The long knives are out for Musk because he is exposing the corruption and graft perpetrated by the Deep State uniparty, and they are going to do everything in their power to stop him, to destroy him. That’s what’s playing out there.
Those attacking Elon Musk for exposing the sickening level of corruption in our federal government are suffering from a cultural Stockholm Syndrome, fomented by years of corrupt politicians and the K Street-backed media telling you, “that’s just how government works.” No, it’s not. And it doesn’t need to be this way. That’s what Musk is exposing.
As the first step to recovering from this cultural Stockholm Syndrome, ask yourself this question: How do elected officials making a six-figure salary, who have to pay exorbitant rent for living quarters in the nation’s capital, exit office as multimillionaires, sometimes amassing wealth in the eight- and nine-figure range?
Then, with an open mind, consider what Musk is exposing.
Share this post