The controversial entity known as DOGE continues to operate despite lacking clear oversight, as it is not formally recognized as a federal agency led by a specific individual. This situation raises significant questions about its legitimacy and the implications of its actions. Recent discussions have brought to light that influential figures, including Donald Trump, have publicly asserted that DOGE is both a governmental body and directed by Elon Musk. However, as legal challenges emerge, the administration appears to be distancing itself from these claims, seemingly trying to erase their previous assertions in an attempt to safeguard their position.
Trump’s endorsement of DOGE has inadvertently weakened the defenses the agency hoped to rely on when faced with numerous FOIA requests seeking transparency about its operations. The administration’s struggle to maintain a coherent narrative has become increasingly evident as it grapples with the fallout from its prior statements, indicating that DOGE may not be as protected from scrutiny as initially believed.
In a dramatic twist, the administration is resorting to a desperate legal maneuver, attempting to leverage decisions from Justices Thomas, Alito, and potentially Roberts to bolster its case. Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, this strategy may have a greater chance of success than merely hoping for a favorable outcome through chance. Indeed, the administration has already achieved a temporary reprieve, courtesy of an emergency order issued by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has persistently pursued legal action against DOGE following its refusal to comply with FOIA requests for essential operational documents. The Trump administration’s response has been to counter these efforts, but it finds itself in a precarious position, as detailed by Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney in Politico:
The Justice Department has filed an emergency appeal urging the Supreme Court to pause a judge’s ruling that mandates the release of documents related to firings, grant terminations, and other actions tied to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which has been associated with Elon Musk.
Solicitor General John Sauer is also requesting the Supreme Court to prevent a deposition of the little-known official identified by the Trump administration as the leader of the budget-cutting initiative: DOGE administrator Amy Gleason.
The administration’s argument for maintaining secrecy hinges on the assertion that DOGE functions merely as an advisory body without the authority to make independent decisions. However, the reality contradicts this claim, as DOGE has been responsible for substantial staffing and funding reductions across various federal agencies, engaged in reckless (and potentially unlawful) data management practices, and operated with a surprising degree of autonomy since its inception, which many see as the misguided vision of a leader who prefers wearing a baseball cap at formal meetings.
Trump’s own statements have further complicated the administration’s position, as he has publicly asserted that DOGE possesses capabilities that contradict the current legal narrative claiming it lacks power. Moreover, the administration has scapegoated individuals like Amy Gleason, deflecting scrutiny from Trump and Musk while trying to mitigate the backlash associated with ongoing FOIA requests and deposition demands.
This controversy has been escalating for several months, highlighted by the observations of U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, who indicated substantial evidence that DOGE has been actively influencing cuts and layoffs within federal agencies. The judge’s findings suggest that DOGE’s activities should indeed be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, a conclusion that has drawn attention to the agency’s operational role.
The judge expressed concerns that DOGE’s involvement in decision-making processes raises significant questions regarding its compliance with transparency laws, indicating a troubling trend that requires further investigation.
With a judge affirming what many have suspected about DOGE’s influence, the administration is now seeking to convince the Supreme Court that public perception should be disregarded, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This legal strategy reflects a broader effort to shield the administration from accountability and prevent further public knowledge about DOGE’s potentially damaging activities.
Compounding the administration’s challenges is its recent decision to officially appoint someone to lead the department—DOGE administrator Amy Gleason. However, it appears that Gleason is being positioned as a shield to absorb criticism aimed at Trump and Musk rather than genuinely directing DOGE’s operations.
While this move may serve to insulate Musk from legal repercussions, it underscores the reality that DOGE operates with its own agenda, rather than merely functioning as a source of administrative advice. Ultimately, someone will have to answer for DOGE’s actions in court if discovery requests lead to depositions.
It is imperative that the standard legal processes regarding litigation against DOGE remain intact. The administration’s desire for judicial leniency is a clear attempt to undermine governmental integrity while simultaneously obstructing public access to information about the agency’s controversial practices. Regardless of who is officially in charge, the implications of DOGE’s actions remain significant, particularly concerning FOIA litigation and the administration’s assertions that DOGE merely offers recommendations.
The outcome of this precarious legal battle remains uncertain. The Supreme Court has shown a propensity to navigate the complexities of political power, granting Trump some leeway while occasionally curtailing the administration’s attempts to erode constitutional rights.
We can only hope this situation will lead to accountability and transparency. The information currently available about DOGE and its operations is deeply troubling. Greater exposure of internal documents may awaken citizens to the reality that their elected government is actively undermining the principles they value and, hopefully, inspire a wave of opposition from those who never anticipated being part of the #NeverTrump movement.
Stay updated on the latest developments in litigation, regulatory changes, financial trends, and more by signing up for Finance Docket, a collaboration between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
