THE TRUTH ABOUT DOGE

National Review

 

The Truth About DOGE

By The Editors

February 19, 2025 6:30 AM

 

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) provokes extreme reactions. In its critics’ eyes, it is a “constitutional crisis,” provoked by an unelected billionaire who does not understand of what he speaks. In its advocates’ eyes, it is the key to ending the federal government’s profligacy and even to balancing the budget. In truth, it is neither of these things — and, for all the hand-waving and gnashing of teeth, it is unlikely to become either of these things in the future.

 

DOGE’s critics are premature, hysterical, and perverted by a peculiar legal theory that has no footing in the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the president has plenary authority over the executive branch to run as he sees fit, with the significant exception that he must carry out tasks given him by Congress — including spending money as it precisely directs, enforcing laws it enacts, and running departments it establishes. Where Congress gives the president discretion, he may exercise it. In neither event, however, do the executive departments have any right to exercise discretion independent of the president’s oversight.

 

Thus far, DOGE has represented nothing more dramatic than an audit of federal spending of the sort in which the president of the United States — acting via any agent he sees fit to name — is self-evidently permitted to engage. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Elon Musk playing accountant for President Trump, providing that he does not act in contravention of Trump’s wishes or trample on any of the prerogatives that the American system accords to Congress. Many observers in the press have simply assumed that Musk is doing both, but, as of yet, there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. Trump himself has confirmed that he, not Musk, is in charge, and insofar as any concrete actions have been taken, they seem to be within the extensive power that the legislature has delegated to the executive. It would be better for our civic health if Congress wrote meticulously detailed laws instead of promulgating vague aims in the hope that the bureaucracy will fill in the gaps. Alas, in a whole host of areas, Congress has done no such thing. In consequence, the White House (not the executive agencies) has been accorded the broad authority to determine how hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars are spent. Until that is changed, it will apply as much to Republican presidents as to Democrats — yes, even if they ask for help with the task from an eccentric.

 

Naturally, there are some bright lines that no president may cross. Absent explicit instructions from Congress, the executive may decide how many staff his department needs. But he cannot take their number down to zero in an attempt to nullify the department in practice. Unless Congress has provided discrete designations, the executive may determine how to spend the funds that have been appropriated. But, while he can delay that process during a period of review, he cannot decline to issue the funds completely, nor allocate them for purposes that are unrelated to the projects for which they were appropriated. In such cases as Congress has left room for mutations of policy, the executive may innovate. But he cannot escape the boundaries of the agency he heads, for that agency does not exist independently of the legislature’s desire. Simply put, there is an enormous difference between a president making different decisions than his predecessor while staying between the statutory lines and a president attempting to close, reorganize, or consolidate a department without permission. At present, the Trump administration has done only the former. If it ranges into the latter territory, it will have illegally usurped Congress’s power.

 

As a general matter, we like the idea of auditing the government for waste, corruption, fraud, and stupidity. Likewise, we applaud the aim of shrinking the federal workforce, which, at best, is bloated and, at worst, represents a dangerous impediment to democratic accountability. But we refuse to kid ourselves into thinking that the exercise will — or can — make a serious dent in our annual deficits or our ballooning debt. Many opponents of DOGE insist that its efforts are unworthy because it is ultimately dealing with such a small percentage of the budget. This is a silly critique that, taken to its logical conclusion, becomes an argument for never cutting or investigating anything. Nevertheless, Elon Musk’s claim that he intends to recover “trillions” of dollars is absurd. Because we disapprove of any waste in government, we will be grateful for whatever he uncovers. But, even if he is successful beyond his wildest dreams, he is not going to alter the fundamental realities of the American fisc. Both parties know full well that our core problem is our runaway entitlement spending, and neither party wants to do anything about it. Until that changes, the debt will continue to grow.

 

Still, one ought not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The unresponsiveness of the bureaucracy is one of the biggest threats to our constitutional order. As a result of congressional abdication, presidential ambition, and the progressive movement’s long march through the institutions, conservative presidents are routinely saddled with a civil service that, with the encouragement of the press and much of the legal academy, has come to regard itself as an independent check on the White House. DOGE cannot solve this problem alone, but, providing that it works within the limits of its legitimate power, it can make itself extremely useful to those who desire reform. By ensuring that federal agencies are staying within their legal bounds, by shining a light on spending and policymaking that would never have got through Congress or been consented to by the voters, and by removing rogue staff whose intention is to make trouble for their elected boss, DOGE can strike a blow against the extra-constitutional “fourth branch” that President Trump has so often promised to curtail. Godspeed.