Why D.O.G.E. is so hard for the left to stop

 

I've been somewhat surprised that the progressive left has filed so few lawsuits opposing the existence, mandate and mission of D.O.G.E. as a whole.  After a few initial lawsuits before it was even legally established, the focus has switched almost completely to complaints on the periphery, rather than trying to stop D.O.G.E. from doing its job altogether.

This article explains why that's the case.

Originally created under the Obama administration to improve government software, the USDS has been rebranded as the United States DOGE Service. This move, as Renz points out, is not merely a name change but a strategic repurposing to align with new priorities.

"Trump did NOT actually create a new agency," Renz noted. "Instead, what he did was repurpose an existing agency - the USDS - into something more useful." This strategy allowed Trump to bypass the need for Congressional approval while ensuring the initiative's legality.

. . .

The executive order is grounded in existing laws, notably 44 USCS Chapter 36, which focuses on developing technology for the government. By leveraging this legal framework, Trump ensured that the DOGE Service's focus on efficiency and IT evaluation remains within the agency's original mandate.

. . .

The executive order mandates the establishment of DOGE teams within every administrative branch agency. These teams, comprising a lead, lawyer, HR person, and engineer, will work under the USDS (DOGE) umbrella to identify waste and improve efficiency.

Renz emphasized the strategic brilliance of this approach: "Looking at the software and how things are managed is a great way to find out where there is waste - particularly when part of the mandate is to ensure efficiency."

. . .

While Renz expressed reservations about the extent of executive branch authority, he commended the strategic execution of the DOGE initiative. "This order was very well done," he stated, adding, "Trump and Musk have really done a good job strategically here."

There's more at the link.

The article made a few things clear to me:

1. President Trump could not have dreamed up this strategy in a week or two.  Even before the election, he must have had people working on ways and means to achieve what he wanted;  and I've no doubt Elon Musk assigned some of his brightest and best personnel to assist in that effort.  The months between election and inauguration must have been at fever pitch, getting all the political and legal ducks in a row to allow the new Administration to get down to it from Day One.
2. It's now clear why President Trump refused the offer of General Services Administration (GSA) funding and assistance during the transition period.  If the GSA had known what he was planning to do, they would undoubtedly have shared that with the rest of the Biden administration, and given Democratic Party lawyers and fixers a head start on figuring out how to block D.O.G.E. and other initiatives.  By keeping things in-house and rejecting official "advisers" or "consultants", President Trump kept his cards very close to his chest, ensuring that D.O.G.E. could "hit the ground running" and shock everybody with the speed at which it moved.
3. Legally, this whole thing was brilliant.  Of course President Trump would have expected "lawfare", with Democrats launching lawsuit after lawsuit to stop him implementing his agenda.  However, by simply using an existing and entirely legal framework to insert D.O.G.E. into the executive function, he bypassed or blocked almost every legal avenue to challenge it.  If it was legal for President Obama's USDS to do what it did, then D.O.G.E. (using precisely the same legal framework and justification) was unchallengeable.  I don't know what lawyers came up with that approach, but it was spectacularly effective.

I think this transition from the Biden to the Trump administrations is going to be studied by political scientists for years to come.  It's a textbook case of how to avoid, evade or nullify efforts to stymie the handover of power.  I can only hope that the Democratic Party doesn't learn from it, and try to do the same when their turn comes (as it undoubtedly will) to assume power once more.  Sadly, I fear that hope is in vain . . .

Peter