Who ACTUALLY Has The Power To CUT Government Spending?

Detractors argue that the department stands on uncertain legal ground and have raised concerns about whether Musk's involvement infringes upon the U.S. Constitution, given that high-ranking government officials typically require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.

The White House has consistently asserted that Musk, despite being the department's public figurehead and seemingly guiding its operations, is merely a "special government employee" and thus not subject to Senate confirmation. However, legal experts remain divided over Musk's role and authority within the federal government.

March 04, 2025

According to The Washington Examiner, Michael Poon from the Pacific Legal Foundation's separation of powers practice group has weighed in on the controversy. With the White House's recent revelation that the DOGE's administrator is Amy Gleason, a healthcare technology executive who served under Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Poon has compared Musk's role to that of a "DOGE czar," or even the president's chief of staff neither of which are Senate-confirmed positions. Poon suggests that because Musk is not the department's administrator, he doesn't appear to have any formal authority.

"Agency heads have the power to ignore him because he doesnt actually have formal power himself," Poon explained, "but they probably listen because Musk is understood to have the presidents confidence." This arrangement, Poon argues, makes Musk informally powerful, with his influence stemming from the expectation that the president would support him, rather than any inherent power in his position.

While Poon doesn't believe Musk's role contravenes any constitutional requirements, he appreciates the public's newfound interest in the role of unelected federal officials. However, he cautions that since these roles have evolved over many decades, it's unlikely that the DOGE-Musk controversy will significantly address the issue.

Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Institutes Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, has expressed concern about the lack of transparency surrounding DOGE and Musk's role. He points to the Appointments Clause, which forms the basis for Senate confirmations of presidential appointees and creates a system of accountability. "When the public perception is that Musk or anyone whos not Senate-confirmed is making these decisions, you dont have any elected person to blame," Berry stated.

Jacob Huebert, President of the Liberty Justice Center, dismisses questions about Trump's authority to establish DOGE and Musk's role within it as unfounded. "Article II of the Constitution gives all executive power to the president," Huebert said. "As long as the president has ultimate decision-making authority here, I dont see any problem with that."

Huebert commends what he perceives as Trump's reformation of the executive branch, aligning it more closely with its original intent. "Its the president deciding how the executive branch is going to run, which is very much the opposite of how it has long been run, where the bureaucracy is kind of leading things even though the bureaucracy doesnt have any constitutional authority whatsoever," Huebert stated.

While Trump's efforts to reduce government spending through DOGE are commendable, Huebert is uncertain about their potential success. The Constitution grants Congress control over the government's purse, and several lawsuits are challenging the President's attempts to cut spending that Congress has already allocated.

Even if DOGE were able to persuade federal agencies to slash their budgets and the courts ruled in their favor, Huebert believes it will be challenging to convince Congress to pass significantly smaller budgets.

"All the incentives to spend, or most of them, are still there. So I dont know how Trump or Elon Musk, if they want to bring it under control, can bring it under control," Huebert said, highlighting the enduring challenges facing DOGE and its ambitious goals.