Compelling Legal and Constitutional Reasons to
Dismantle the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Compelling Legal and Constitutional Concerns to Dismantle the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

​

Introduction

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created under the leadership of Elon Musk, has raised serious concerns across multiple fronts, from unauthorized access to sensitive government data to potential violations of constitutional and legal norms. This backgrounder highlights the growing issues surrounding DOGE, including the threats it poses to federal employees, the misrepresentation of cost savings, and the broader implications for democratic values and the rule of law. These actions raise critical questions about transparency, accountability, and the safeguarding of constitutional principles that affect not only government workers but every American citizen. It is crucial to understand the potential long-term impact of these actions, as they set a dangerous precedent for future governance and the erosion of vital protections.

​

1. Unauthorized Access to Sensitive Government Data

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has sought access to sensitive government data, raising serious privacy and security concerns. A federal judge recently issued a temporary restraining order blocking DOGE from accessing personal information from the U.S. Education Department and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). This decision, issued on January 15, 2025, followed arguments that such access violated the Privacy Act of 1974, specifically 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), which prohibits the disclosure of personal information from government records without the individual’s consent, unless the disclosure falls within specific exceptions outlined in the Act. This legal action underscores the risks of unauthorized or improperly sanctioned access to personal data held by federal agencies.

​

Why this is important for all Americans: This issue should concern all Americans because unauthorized access to sensitive government data poses a threat not only to the privacy of federal employees but to the broader public as well. The Privacy Act of 1974 was enacted to protect individuals' personal information from misuse, and when that protection is compromised, it raises broader questions about the security of all citizens' data within government systems. If the government fails to uphold these safeguards, it risks eroding trust in federal institutions and could set dangerous precedents for the future of data privacy.

​

2. Threats to Federal Employees

DOGE has reportedly issued directives to federal employees demanding documentation of their recent accomplishments, with threats of termination for non-compliance. This approach has led to significant resistance from various government officials and labor unions, who question the legality and appropriateness of such demands from an unelected individual like Elon Musk. The legality of these actions may contravene several provisions of U.S. law, particularly those protecting federal workers from arbitrary or unlawful treatment.

• Due Process under the Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from depriving individuals of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Federal employees, as part of the U.S. government, are entitled to the protections afforded by this amendment, particularly regarding their employment. The demands issued by DOGE, including threats of termination, may violate an employee's due process rights if the actions are arbitrary, do not follow established procedures, or are not supported by just cause. (U.S. Constitution, Amendment V)

• Civil Service Reform Act of 1978: The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) established the legal framework for protecting federal employees from arbitrary dismissal, political interference, and mistreatment. Section 2302(b)(8) of the CSRA prohibits retaliation against federal employees for exercising their rights or participating in lawful activities, such as speaking out against abuses or unfair treatment. The threats issued by DOGE could be seen as retaliatory or coercive actions that violate the spirit of the CSRA’s protections against arbitrary and capricious dismissal. (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8))

• Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute: The Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) protects federal employees' right to unionize, bargain collectively, and engage in protected activities without fear of retaliation. Section 7116(a)(1) of the statute prohibits agencies from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of these rights. DOGE's demands and threats of termination may violate this statute if employees are pressured into complying with directives that undermine their rights to collective bargaining or union membership. (5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1))

• Unlawful Coercion and Intimidation: Under the Federal Employees Equal Pay Act (FEPCA) and various civil rights provisions, employees are protected from coercion and intimidation in the workplace. Specifically, retaliation against employees for refusing to comply with unlawful or unethical directives may violate anti-retaliation protections in employment law, such as those found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retaliation under this provision includes adverse employment actions taken in response to an employee’s refusal to follow illegal or unethical directives, or as a result of an employee filing a discrimination or whistleblower complaint. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a))

​

These provisions demonstrate the legal concerns surrounding DOGE’s actions, especially the risks of undermining the rights of federal employees and the potential for unlawful interference with their employment conditions.

 

Why this is important for all Americans: This is important for all Americans because the actions of DOGE could set a troubling precedent for how federal employees are treated and undermine protections against arbitrary or unlawful actions by government entities. If these tactics are allowed to persist, they could erode trust in government institutions and threaten the principles of fairness and accountability that safeguard both employees and the public.

​

3. Misrepresentation of Cost Savings

DOGE has claimed substantial savings from budget cuts, but investigations have revealed inconsistencies and potential misrepresentations:

• $8 billion cut corrected to $8 million: A contract initially listed as an $8 billion cut was later corrected to $8 million, raising questions about the accuracy of DOGE’s reported savings. (Forbes, February 19, 2025)

• No actual savings: Nearly 40% of the federal contracts DOGE canceled would not result in any actual savings for taxpayers. A review by the Associated Press found that 417 out of 1,125 contracts terminated during the first month of the Trump administration had already had their funds spent or legally committed, making recouping impossible. (The Guardian, February 25, 2025)

• Exaggerated savings: A Wall Street Journal analysis revealed that DOGE’s reported savings of $55 billion were significantly overstated, with actual savings closer to $2.6 billion. Many of the canceled contracts represented maximum credit card-like limits rather than actual expenditures. (Wall Street Journal, February 25, 2025)

 

Why this is important for all Americans: This issue is important for all Americans because misrepresenting cost savings undermines taxpayer trust and accountability in government spending. If such claims are proven to be exaggerated or inaccurate, it could lead to misallocated resources and reduced public confidence in the integrity of fiscal management, affecting programs and services that many rely on.

​

4. Potential Violations of Constitutional and Legal Norms

Legal challenges have been initiated against DOGE, alleging violations of constitutional provisions regarding the appointment of federal officers. These lawsuits argue that Musk’s role and the powers exercised by DOGE may contravene established legal frameworks and constitutional norms related to the separation of powers, as well as the proper appointment and accountability of federal officers.

• Separation of Powers: The U.S. Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the President the power to appoint officers of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. By creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and giving Musk significant authority over federal employees and agencies, critics argue that DOGE’s powers may infringe upon the traditional roles and responsibilities of the executive branch, particularly in appointing and overseeing officers. This could represent an unconstitutional delegation of executive power or an improper accumulation of power in a non-elected individual. (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2)

• Appointments Clause: The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, found in Article II, Section 2, requires that federal officers be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, unless Congress allows otherwise. Legal challenges to DOGE argue that Musk’s role—unconfirmed by the Senate—may be in violation of this clause, particularly if his powers extend to making key decisions that affect federal employees or agency operations without a formal Senate confirmation. This raises concerns about whether Musk's authority over federal personnel is constitutionally valid. (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2)

• Nondelegation Doctrine: The Nondelegation Doctrine limits the ability of Congress to delegate its legislative powers to the executive branch. While Congress can delegate authority to agencies, it must provide clear guidelines for how that power is to be exercised. Legal challenges against DOGE assert that the authority given to Musk may constitute an unconstitutional delegation of power, as it lacks clear parameters or oversight mechanisms to ensure that DOGE operates within lawful limits. The doctrine maintains that any delegation of power by the executive must adhere to strict standards of accountability. (J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928))

• Appointments and Accountability: The Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) and other legal precedents also raise questions about the constitutionality of Musk’s role in DOGE. The FVRA provides a framework for temporarily filling vacancies in key government positions, but it requires that individuals exercising significant powers be appointed in accordance with constitutional procedures. Given Musk’s position within DOGE, there is concern that his role bypasses necessary constitutional processes, including Senate confirmation and oversight, violating the legal framework intended to ensure accountability in the federal government. (5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq.)

 

These legal frameworks suggest that Musk’s involvement in DOGE may challenge well-established constitutional principles, particularly in regard to the proper appointment of federal officers and the separation of powers.

​

Why this is important for all Americans: This issue is critical for all Americans because the integrity of our democratic system and the rule of law is at stake. When constitutional principles—such as the separation of powers and the proper appointment of federal officers—are undermined, it threatens the very foundation of how our government operates. The unchecked concentration of power in the hands of an unelected individual could set a dangerous precedent that erodes checks and balances, weakening accountability and transparency in government. If we allow these violations to go unchallenged, it could open the door to further abuses of power that impact not just federal employees, but all citizens who rely on a fair and functioning democracy.

​

Conclusion

The establishment and actions of DOGE under Elon Musk’s leadership have raised significant constitutional, legal, and ethical concerns. The unauthorized access to sensitive data, threats to federal employees, misrepresentation of cost savings, and potential violations of constitutional norms collectively underscore the need for thorough scrutiny and, if necessary, the dismantling of DOGE to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law.

​

These actions by DOGE are not just a concern for federal employees—they pose a threat to the very principles of democracy that affect all Americans. When an unelected individual like Elon Musk can circumvent established legal safeguards, access sensitive data without proper oversight, and wield undue power over the federal workforce, it undermines the integrity of our government and the checks and balances designed to protect citizens' rights. The potential violation of constitutional norms and the disregard for due process, accountability, and transparency weaken the foundations of our democratic system. If such actions go unchecked, it sets a dangerous precedent that could extend beyond federal employees, potentially eroding the rights of every American by diminishing the safeguards that ensure our government remains accountable and transparent. The actions of DOGE reflect broader threats to our freedoms and the rule of law, making it imperative that all citizens stand up and ensure these abuses are addressed.

 

 

Citations:

• Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a

• The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2 (Appointments Clause)

• Forbes: "Here Are The Biggest DOGE Hoaxes And Inaccuracies," Conor Murray, February 19, 2025 (forbes.com).

• The Guardian: "The Real Cost of Musk’s DOGE Budget Cuts," February 25, 2025 (theguardian.com).

• Wall Street Journal: "Elon Musk’s DOGE Federal Savings Claims: The Real Numbers," February 25, 2025 (wsj.com).

• U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 (Appropriations Clause)

• U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3 (Take Care Clause)