What’s Wrong with DOGE? Its Structure, for One

On President Donald Trump’s first day in office, he fulfilled a promise made on the campaign trail: To “create a Government Efficiency Commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms,”  led by tech billionaire Elon Musk. A January 20 executive order created the “Department of Government Efficiency” or DOGE, a “temporary organization” set to end on July 4, 2026, whose purpose was “to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda.” Though his role was not defined in the order, Musk’s fingerprints were all over the new entity.

In the weeks and months that followed its creation, DOGE’s reach and power have steadily expanded, even as its organization and its mission have remained hazy. This opacity — a lack of visibility into DOGE’s structure, leadership, personnel, and funding — has made it extremely difficult for Congress, the courts, and the American public to hold DOGE accountable as it undertakes a massive downsizing of the federal government and its spending.

DOGE’s Power and Scope Have Steadily Expanded

When the first executive order creating DOGE was signed on Inauguration Day, the organization’s purpose was defined as “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” The order reorganized and renamed an existing White House unit, the United States Digital Service (USDS), and created the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. DOGE, the order said, would be led by an administrator who reported to the White House Chief of Staff. The order also directed each agency head to establish a DOGE Team within their agency to advise them on “implementing the President’s DOGE Agenda.” A memorandum issued that same day ordered the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to consult with the director of the Office of Personnel Management and the administrator of DOGE to “submit a plan to reduce the size of the Federal Government’s workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition.”

DOGE’s scope expanded in a second executive order on February 11. The order said its purpose was to commence “a critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy.” In this first February order, Trump began to pin down the mission of DOGE a bit more, ordering agency heads to work with the DOGE Team Lead within their departments to develop a data-driven hiring plan. Any new hiring needed to be done in consultation with the DOGE Team Lead, the order said, though agency heads retained the final say.

On February 19, DOGE’s remit was expanded again to aid in the “deconstruction of the overbearing and burdensome administrative state.” In his third DOGE-related executive order, Trump ordered agency heads to consult with DOGE Team Leads and the newly confirmed director of OMB to review all regulations and identify those not in line with the president’s agenda. It also stated that agency heads “shall” consult with DOGE Team Leads and with OMB on new regulations.

A fourth executive order on February 26 granted DOGE even more control over agencies, increasing its power to review and determine how agencies spend their money. Agency heads now need to consult with DOGE Team Leads on contracts and grants (both existing and new), employee credit cards, non-essential travel, and leased property.   

The orders make clear that while DOGE would have a central hub within the White House, it would also have outgrowths of power across the federal government. And with each order, the power of DOGE ― wherever DOGE was located ― increased. 

DOGE Operates as an Agency — When it Wants to

While it was not authorized by Congress to be an agency, in some respects DOGE operates like one ― involved in firing thousands of federal employees, canceling contracts, and physically shuttering federal office buildings. This gray space between agency and “not-agency” comes with significant benefits. The difficulty defining DOGE is not an accident, but rather seemingly opacity-by-design that helps block its personnel and actions from judicial review, congressional oversight, and public accountability. 

For example, DOGE does not meet the transparency requirements that Congress has established for federal agencies. POGO filed a suit against DOGE in February over its record keeping, arguing that if DOGE acts like an agency, it should be subject to the Federal Records Act (among other statutes). But the administration claims that DOGE is a component of the White House and thus subject to the Presidential Record Act ― which would shield these records from the public for up to twelve years from when the president leaves office. 

DOGE has also avoided the accountability that comes through the congressional budget process. Congress has appropriated no funding for it. Yet ProPublica found that much of DOGE’s nearly $40 million budget has come from funds appropriated for federal agencies. This transfer is made possible by the Economy Act, a 1933 law that authorizes agencies to enter into agreements to obtain supplies or services from another agency. This again highlights a tension created by DOGE’s potentially purposeful opacity: The Trump administration has treated DOGE as an agency for funding purposes, but not in other respects. 

There are other considerations when shifting funding from one agency to another, and DOGE may be avoiding accountability there as well. For example, if the money agencies are paying to DOGE is marked for technology, but it’s used to close buildings, it could violate the Purpose Statute, which “limits an agency’s use of appropriations to only those ‘objects for which the appropriations were made.’” 

There is no evidence that DOGE funding has violated the Purpose Statute, but that’s the point — because it doesn’t meet the threshold of record keeping and transparency required of agencies, there’s simply not enough public evidence available to even begin to answer that question. 

DOGE Leadership and Staffing Are Difficult to Pin Down

One thing the first executive order establishing DOGE was clear on was the organization’s leadership: It created the position of administrator to lead the entity. But so far, the administration has been contradictory about who is actually calling the shots at DOGE. Before his swearing in, Trump announced that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy would lead DOGE’s work. Ramaswamy stepped away, and since assuming office, Trump has repeatedly presented Musk as the leader of DOGE. Most notably, in his March 6 Joint Address to Congress, Trump said “I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency – DOGE. Perhaps you’ve heard of it — perhaps — which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight.”

Yet when DOGE actions have been challenged in court or in the media, the administration has denied that Musk is its lead. On February 3, the administration announced that Musk was a special government employee. Later that month, a White House aide declared under penalty of perjury as part of a lawsuit that Musk is a White House senior advisor – not the leader of DOGE. On February 25, Amy Gleason was named as the Acting Administrator of DOGE; it’s not clear when she was appointed. In a March court filing, the administration revealed that Gleason was also detailed to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in February and was hired by the department on March 4. It’s not clear, given the vast reach of DOGE, how a single person could both lead the entity’s efforts and work full-time at a federal agency at the same time.  

The confusion over who is in charge appears to be less a matter of fact and more a matter of convenience; a senior fellow for constitutional studies at the Cato Institute compared this strategy to a shell game. Being evasive about who is in charge makes it more difficult to hold DOGE’s actions accountable and apply ethics standards to its leader. 

If it seems difficult to pin down the leader of DOGE, it’s even more difficult to pin down who is doing the work. In less than three months of existence, DOGE has taken on any number of forms. DOGE staffers work (or have worked) within the DOGE unit in the White House, as members of DOGE embedded at federal agencies, as detailees to agencies, and ultimately as permanent employees at those agencies. 

The challenge of identifying who, exactly, comprises DOGE’s staff and leadership more than two months after its establishing executive order is not a reflection of a lack of reading or research. Instead, it is a specific and intended consequence of the cloak of secrecy that has been placed over DOGE since its inception. But if Congress and the public cannot be sure who DOGE is or how it is operating, it makes it easier for staffers to skirt the ethics requirements that govern these various modes of employment. Neither Gleason, nor Musk, nor any other individual named as working for DOGE has been elected by the public or been confirmed by the Senate. And while POGO has investigated ethics concerns among known DOGE staff members, its opacity makes it more difficult to pursue further investigation.

This leads to a second concern, as well — if former DOGE staffers, or staffers with ties to Musk and his entities, are folded into agency staff over time, then what happens when an agency’s interests conflict with those of DOGE? Already, several agencies have clashed with DOGE over access to secure systems and data. Currently, we’re seeing the impact of this opacity play out around the nominee to lead the Social Security Administration, who’s facing questions from the Senate about his relationship with DOGE. 

The fluidity of DOGE’s structure and staffing will continue until court rulings begin to fence in the entity and how it operates. Or until DOGE transforms completely into an effort dictated by the White House, but implemented by full-time agency employees who may previously have worked for DOGE directly.

Conclusion

For months, DOGE has seemed happy to exist in the murky middle ― neither accountable to the public nor answerable to Congress, but still wielding significant power. But as judges continue to rule on the various suits brought against it, DOGE will lose some of its ability to duck and weave about what it is, how it’s structured, and who is in charge. We urge the administration and DOGE itself to follow these rulings and become a more transparent unit of government.