Is DOGE constitutional? Legal? And who’s actually cutting what?
by Dave Soulia on FYIVT.com
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), launched under President Donald Trump and originally co-led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has sparked heated debate over its constitutionality, legality, and actual role in reducing government waste. Critics claim that DOGE oversteps its authority and threatens privacy, while supporters argue that it is a much-needed audit mechanism to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in federal spending.
With Vivek Ramaswamy recently stepping down to run for governor in Ohio, Musk has taken full control of the initiative, further amplifying its controversial profile. At the same time, comments from Rep. Becca Balint have exposed a political double standard—denouncing young engineers involved in DOGE despite previously advocating for youth empowerment.
So, let’s break it all down: Is DOGE legal? Is it constitutional? Who’s actually making the cuts? And why are politicians panicking?
Is DOGE Constitutional?
Yes. DOGE is an entirely constitutional advisory body, just like countless presidential commissions and task forces before it. The U.S. Constitution allows the President to appoint advisers to help execute federal policies, and DOGE’s function falls well within that precedent.
Critics have tried to argue that DOGE is an unconstitutional overreach, claiming it makes spending decisions without congressional approval. However, this is a deliberate misrepresentation of what DOGE actually does.
- DOGE does not control government funds.
- DOGE does not have executive power to make unilateral budget cuts.
- DOGE only reviews financials and presents recommendations to Trump, who makes the final call.
No separation of powers is being violated. Congress still controls the budget, executive agencies still enforce policy, and DOGE simply identifies inefficiencies.
Is DOGE Doing Anything Illegal?
No. There is zero proof that DOGE has done anything illegal.
The biggest legal controversy surrounding DOGE is whether its access to Treasury systems could lead to privacy violations. A coalition of 19 states filed a lawsuit arguing that DOGE’s access to Treasury payment data could expose personal financial information. However:
- There is no evidence that DOGE has accessed private citizen data.
- DOGE’s access was “read-only” and strictly for auditing purposes.
- A federal judge temporarily blocked DOGE’s Treasury access as a precaution, not as a ruling of wrongdoing.
The legal opposition to DOGE is preemptive rather than reactionary—meaning critics are panicking over what they think might happen, rather than responding to any proven misconduct.
Meanwhile, if critics were truly concerned about data security, they’d be more focused on past government data breaches, such as:
- The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) hack (2015), which compromised 21 million federal employees’ records.
- The IRS data leak (2021), where private tax returns of the ultra-wealthy were mysteriously exposed.
- The Healthcare.gov security failures (2013), which put users’ private information at risk.
The idea that Musk’s engineers—some of the most advanced minds in cybersecurity and AI—are a security risk is laughable, especially compared to the government’s own track record of incompetence.
Who Is Actually Cutting Spending—DOGE or Trump?
Despite the alarmist rhetoric, DOGE is not slashing government programs or making unilateral budget decisions. It is an audit team, not an enforcement agency.
- Trump (or his designees) make the final decisions. DOGE flags inefficiencies and presents recommendations.
- DOGE is analyzing, not executing. They are reviewing spending patterns, contracts, and operational expenses for waste, fraud, and abuse.
Example: If DOGE finds a government contract charging taxpayers five times the market price for office supplies, they report it to the administration. Then, Trump’s team decides whether to renegotiate or eliminate the contract.
DOGE is not eliminating jobs or defunding programs—they are simply shining a light on wasteful spending.
Becca Balint’s Hypocrisy on Youth Empowerment
One of the most revealing moments in the DOGE debate came from Rep. Becca Balint, who dismissively attacked the young engineers working on Musk’s team.
Her comment:
“Get Elon Musk out of our business. Get those 18- and 24-year-olds who are there working for him out of our personal private information.”
This statement is particularly condescending coming from someone who has previously championed youth empowerment.
- Balint has publicly praised young activists and urged them to be “engaged” and “scrappy” in fighting for change.
- Yet, when young engineers apply those same qualities toward auditing government spending, she belittles them and suggests they shouldn’t be involved.
Her problem isn’t with young people—it’s with where they’re working.
If these same engineers were working for a left-wing advocacy group, she’d be applauding them. But because they’re exposing waste in her government allies’ budgets, she wants them gone.
This double standard is obvious—she only “supports youth” when they align with her political interests.
Are DOGE Officials Getting Paid?
No. DOGE is completely unpaid.
Musk has publicly stated that his compensation is “zero.” He has called the work “tedious” and described long hours spent analyzing bureaucratic inefficiencies.
So, the idea that Musk is financially benefiting from DOGE is false. His participation appears to be driven by a mix of:
- Genuine interest in fixing inefficiencies
- A belief in AI-driven government audits
- A desire to support Trump’s vision of reducing bureaucracy
Balint’s attempts to paint this as a corrupt money-grab fall apart when you realize no one is getting paid.
Conclusion: Why the Political Class Fears DOGE
DOGE is constitutional, legal, and advisory. It does not have enforcement power and is not making unilateral cuts.
So, why the outrage? Because for the first time, AI-driven audits are exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in real-time.
- DOGE is faster than traditional government audits.
- It’s being run by experts rather than bureaucrats.
- It threatens entrenched interests who thrive on inefficiency.
Politicians like Balint are not scared of “privacy risks.” They’re scared of what DOGE might uncover.
The real story here isn’t about constitutionality or legality—it’s about the political elite panicking over finally being held accountable.