As head of the newly created government efficiency management, Elon Musk and his team spent the first three weeks of President Donald Trump’s new administration in Washington’s heart upside down.
Dog’s goal is to radically reduce the federal government: Mr. Musk says he believes he can find $ 2 trillion of savings by disposal of waste, closing agencies, selling real estate, and laying a large part of the government workforce.
But is it legal for this new entity, within the president’s executive office, to do all of this alone at a coherent pace?
Why did we write this
The United States Constitution provides for checks and balances as a basic sign of health democracy. This system faces a test as a new administration that pushes the borders of the executive.
In some respects, it seems that the billionaire follows the same playing book as it was when it took over Twitter, which was called X. He reduced its general strength, the value of the company’s shares decreased, and saw many users, even as the social platform continues in light of new policies.
However, the conversion of a private royal company is far from reforming the federal government. While many Americans believe that Washington’s bureaucracy is ineffective and even farce, government programs also have their strong supporters. Outside of politics, there are much more legal restrictions on the invention of public institutions more than private companies that aim to profit.
The structure of the United States government, which is devoted to both the constitution and laws, makes change more difficult to achieve. Indeed, the courts are involved.
On Thursday afternoon, a federal judge in Boston suspended the program of temporarily buying federal employees in Boston, although the Doge Ultimatums Blitz effect means that thousands of offices are already empty. Earlier on Thursday, another federal judge in the capital was prevented from reaching the records of the Ministry of Sensitive Treasury and Payment Systems.
Clashes on computers
Reintep is renamed Executive order From the American digital service, it is technically allowed to access federal government computer systems. But the clashes have erupted on the type of information that Doug workers sought and how they can use – or abuse them -.
In the Treasury, for example, DOGE employees have sought to reach the systems used to process trillions of dollars from payments every year. These systems include social security names, addresses and numbers. As part of an ongoing lawsuit, a federal judge on Thursday confined the organization to the arrival of these treasury data.
Although other agencies were more cooperative – such as medical care and medical care centers, Dog is looking for evidence of benefits – the organization is based on a legal flower basis when it comes to access to sensitive information kept by the federal government.
“Roughshod” operation on the power of the Congress of the wallet?
The Constitution gives Congress wide powers on how to spend federal funds. The Trump administration tested the borders of these forces.
A week after the new administration, the US administration and budget office issued a memorandum requesting a cessation of all grants and federal loans pending a executive branch review. Non -profit organizations have responded with lawsuits that seek to prevent the memorandum, and they are wondering about the Trump administration’s legal authority to finance unilateral pause by Congress.
OMB canceled the memo a few days later, although the administration officials said that its review of the federal spending would continue. The lawsuits also continued, and on Monday, a federal judge in Washington, DC, was temporarily prevented from implementing the granting note.
“The actions of the defendants in this case are likely to manage a cruelty on” decency from the constitution “by interfering in the authority of the constitutional Congress of the portfolio, Judge Lauren Alejhan wrote in I command it.
The executive authority can prevent some of the allocations of Congress. In some situations, the president can “reserve” (blocking) boxes approved by Congress. This authority was curbed after violations by President Richard Nixon, and the Trump administration may now try to restore some of it.
The authority’s confirmation to close the entire agencies
Dog and Trump administration also sought to restructure, and perhaps even eliminate the entire federal agencies.
Earlier this week, Dog told the United States Agency for International Development Agency (the United States Agency for International Development) of not coming to work the next day. Mr. Musk wrote on social media: The Development Agency, which runs billions of dollars in civil foreign aid around the world, has been fed in firewood. He claimed the full support of Mr. Trump, who said he was “closing him.”
Dog staff also reviewed the operations in the Ministry of Education, which Mr. Trump pledged to close during his campaign. Like the American Agency for International Development, the administration was established and funded by Congress.
Legal experts say this should be the end of the conversation.
“These are entities created by Congress, with jobs set by Congress, [and] Don Kittel, a former professor and former dean at the University of Maryland’s General Policy College, says the budgets approved by Congress. “The president cannot change any of these.”
“You fired”
The efforts to reduce the size of DOGE and the Trump size reduction efforts have been attempted.
The last “thorn on the road” has moved from Dog to 2 million federal employees. The administration also provided “deferred resignations” to employees of the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. White House press secretary Caroline Levitte said on Thursday that about 40,000 workers (about 2 % of the federal workforce) have taken the offer so far.
The Ministry of Justice has now requested a list of the employees of the Federal Office of the Federal Office who worked on issues related to Mr. Trump and January 6, 2021, to storm the American Capitol.
Critics questioned the legitimacy of these measures and warned of security cases that may arise with them. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the names of some CIA employees were listed in an unknown email sent to officials at the Personnel Management Office.
A group of unknown FBI agents Presented Judicial cases Challenge the legitimacy of such a “picnic”, which seeks to protect personal information. They argue that the Trump administration’s efforts to identify specific employees violate the federal privacy law and put them in danger.
Is this legal? The Civil Service Law has provisions that protect federal employees from political intervention. Most federal workers can only be expelled if their performance or misconduct is documented. Until then, employees have rights in legal procedures and appeal.
Gaps and “fog of war”
There are possible gaps. The executive authority has the authority to place employees on a paid vacation, for example. The agency heads can motivate employees to resign or retire early.
“You have people lining up to say this is not. [lawful]Dr. Kittel says it is difficult to challenge some specific procedures.
Claims for protesting such workers require that the plaintiff clearly clarify how the policy of appeals to harm them, for example. But this may be difficult if a post policy is not valid.
Godfredo A.vásquez/AP/File
“There is a lot of war fog. Jonathan Adler, a professor of law at Western Reserve University, says,” We are not completely sure of the details. “This makes it very difficult to assess the legitimacy of very specific things.”
The Trump administration may even hope to raise legal battles on specific issues. For example, litigation may be a means of management to persuade the courts that the authority should be expanded to the president.
Next is a battle on checks and balances
In the coming months, federal courts can hear lawsuits related to the president’s ability to interfere in Congress credits, restructuring federal agencies, shoot or buy some federal employees.
The authors of the constitution designed the country’s basic governance document, so that each branch aims to verify the other. The judicial branch, as happened in the first Trump administration, can appear as a strong investigation by the executive branch. But will the Republican Conference and the borrowed return to their party’s leader, especially when Mr. Trump showed a retaliatory series against those who show betrayal?
“The balance of power is defined by how they are executed,” says Dr. Kittel. “It is not as if there is a red line that you cross, and as soon as you cross, it leads to some procedures.” “The only procedure provided by the constitution is for another branch to verify power.”
In short, there is no separation of the constitutional powers unless the branches of the government concerned take measures to ensure the separation and balance of power.
Two weeks after the second Trump administration, the jury came out.
In most cases, Republican lawmakers support Mr. Trump. Last month, a member of Congress in North Carolina Submit To eliminate the Ministry of Education. (Congress law will be the constitutional way to do this.)
Days after the Omb Grant Freze note, Parliament Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican, Describe As a “application of a healthy sense” that “will be harmless in the end.”
Senator Kevin Kramer, a Republican in Northern Dakota, made a different vision. Senator Kramer said in late January that Mr. Trump was “testing his authority.” While supporting the review and reassessment of government spending, he added that it would be a “major test for the separation of authorities.”
Editor Note: This story was updated on February 7, date The original publication, To correct Judge Lauren Alejhan’s satire first name.
