Will This DOGE Just Bark or Take a Bite Out of the Constitution
Photo Source: Office of Speaker Mike Johnson – Public Domain
It’s going to take a very brave judge to stop Elon Musk and the Trump-created DOGEat this point. And I doubt that judge is going to appear anytime soon. Which means that, ultimately, this saga won’t be resolved until it works its way through levels of court proceedings, appeals, and perhaps even lands before the Supreme Court.
Let’s back up for a moment. Legal experts have been sounding the alarm for months, arguing that DOGE’s actions—many of which seem to operate in a legal gray area—may actually be outright illegal. Critics have pointed to potential violations of the Privacy Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Federal Information Security Modernization Act. Some go further, arguing that DOGE’s aggressive overreach—such as forcing the removal of federal employees, claiming the power to dissolve agencies, and even seizing funds authorized by Congress—flies in the face of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. In short, there’s a growing consensus that what we’re witnessing is nothing less than a constitutional crisis in the making.
Yet, despite these concerns, there seems to be little appetite from the totality of lawmakers—at least those who wield real power—to pump the brakes. When House Democrats tried to subpoena Musk over DOGE’s activities on February 5, 2025, Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shut them down. That lack of congressional oversight has forced outside organizations to step in. Just two days later, the ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act requests with more than 40 federal agencies, hoping to uncover whether DOGE has gained unauthorized access to sensitive personal and financial data.
The most high-profile legal battle thus far is Gribbon v. Musk, a class-action lawsuit filed on February 12, 2025. The plaintiffs, which include taxpayers, federal employees, and benefit recipients, argue that DOGE’s access to their personal and financial data violates their rights and entitles them to compensation. The lawsuit specifically challenges whether DOGE, a quasi-governmental entity established under executive authority, has the legal right to bypass existing privacy laws and access government databases without oversight. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have artfully pointed out that DOGE’s structure lacks transparency and its leadership—headed by Musk and key allies like Scott Bessent—operates outside traditional government accountability measures.
Another significant challenge to DOGE’s authority comes from the USAID controversy. When DOGE ordered the agency’s closure and placed 2,200 employees on administrative leave, the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees fought back. On February 6, these labor unions filed a lawsuit arguing that the executive branch lacks unilateral authority to dismantle a congressionally funded agency. Judge Carl J. Nichols issued a temporary restraining order on February 7, preventing the shutdown from proceeding, and later extended the freeze through February 21. The case raises broader questions about whether DOGE’s consolidation of power represents a direct challenge to the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Adding to the legal chaos, DOGE has set its powerful jaws on the Internal Revenue Service’s Integrated Data Retrieval System, a database containing highly sensitive taxpayer information. Sources indicate that the IRS, under pressure from the White House, is preparing to grant a DOGE employee access to this system under the justification of investigating “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Critics argue that allowing DOGE this level of access without clear legal safeguards represents an unprecedented violation of taxpayer privacy rights. The IRS has remained largely silent on the matter, but leaked internal emails suggest growing unease within the agency about the legal implications of complying with DOGE’s demands.
Meanwhile, in a separate lawsuit filed on February 17, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan held a hearing regarding a request to block Musk from influencing federal agencies through DOGE. The lawsuit, brought by a coalition of civil liberties groups, alleges that Musk is using DOGE to execute policies without congressional approval, effectively consolidating executive power in ways that circumvent legal norms. Judge Chutkan, while expressing skepticism about granting an immediate restraining order, acknowledged the broader concerns about DOGE’s secrecy and the speed at which it has exerted influence over multiple government agencies.
The legal landscape surrounding DOGE is further complicated by the ideological divide in the judiciary—and this is where things get super-complicated.
Some conservative judges appear hesitant to challenge DOGE’s actions, seeing them as an extension of executive authority that aligns with their broader vision of deregulation and government restructuring. Others, particularly those appointed in prior administrations, have expressed deep concern over what they view as blatant overreach. The upcoming rulings in these cases could set major precedents for executive power and data privacy in the digital age.
At this point, the only thing that’s clear is that Elon Musk and DOGE are pushing the limits of executive power in ways we haven’t seen before. The legal battles are mounting, but so far, no judge has stepped up to put a stop to it. And unless one does soon, more courts—and possibly even the Supreme Court—will be left to clean up the mess.