As Elon Musk steps back from his role in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the chaotic legacy of his aggressive approach to federal agencies continues to reverberate throughout the corridors of power. Initially, Musk set an ambitious goal: to slash $1 trillion from the federal budget. However, this endeavor has yielded only a fraction of that promise, with reported cuts amounting to a mere $31.8 billion. This figure, as noted by financial analysts, is often regarded as “opaque and overstated.” Ironically, while Musk has sought to reduce government spending, his own businesses, particularly SpaceX, have benefited significantly from government funding, raising questions about the motivations behind his budgetary crusade.
Taking the reins of DOGE is Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget and a pivotal figure in Project 2025—a sweeping conservative initiative aimed at consolidating executive power. Under Vought’s leadership, DOGE is poised to continue its mission of dismantling federal structures from within, a strategy that has already drawn significant legal scrutiny.
Mark Lemley, the director of Stanford Law School’s program in law, science, and technology, has emerged as a vocal critic of DOGE’s tactics. He is currently leading a lawsuit against the department for allegedly violating the Privacy Act on behalf of federal employees. “Access to all of this information gives extraordinary power to the worst people,” Lemley asserts, highlighting the potential dangers of unchecked access to sensitive data.
The legal landscape surrounding DOGE is becoming increasingly fraught. Recent reports indicate that the department’s actions have triggered over three dozen lawsuits, part of a broader wave of 328 cases challenging the Trump administration’s expansive use of executive authority. “There have now been hundreds of court decisions on issues, some involving the Privacy Act, but a wide variety of the Trump administration’s illegal activities,” Lemley notes, emphasizing the growing judicial pushback against perceived overreach.
One particularly alarming incident involved the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which allegedly handed over sensitive employee data to DOGE without proper consent or legal authority. This breach occurred shortly after Trump resumed office, when Musk’s operatives reportedly infiltrated various government agencies, demanding access to critical federal systems. The OPM database, which contains sensitive information such as Social Security numbers and bank records, was among those accessed, raising serious concerns about data security and privacy.
As Congress, now under Republican control, appears to be abdicating its oversight responsibilities, the judiciary has stepped into the breach. “Courts are, so far, being the sort of bastion and holding the line for the Constitution,” Lemley observes. He notes that judges are producing detailed opinions in remarkably short timeframes, particularly as the government’s justifications for its actions become increasingly tenuous.
The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has come under scrutiny for its alignment with the Trump administration’s interests, often resembling personal legal counsel rather than an independent agency. “If you read Bondi’s recent memo about leak investigations, it’s half just screeds from President Trump himself,” says Shawn Musgrave, a reporter and counsel at The Intercept. “You have to sift through a lot of vitriol to discern any coherent policy.”
Lemley reflects on the lessons learned from Trump’s first term, noting that the former president viewed an independent Justice Department as a significant obstacle. In this second term, the erosion of established norms has exposed vulnerabilities in the system. “Checks and balances depended not on the actual letter of the law but on a series of norms and good-faith behavior by parties to the government,” he explains. “As we see those norms wiped away, it becomes much harder to control a president determined to consolidate power.”
The ongoing legal battles and the judiciary’s role as a counterbalance to executive overreach underscore the fragility of democratic institutions in the face of aggressive power consolidation. As the courts continue to navigate these tumultuous waters, they remain a crucial line of defense against potential abuses of power, reminding us of the importance of accountability and transparency in governance.
For those interested in a deeper understanding of these issues, the full conversation on The Intercept Briefing offers valuable insights into the legal challenges facing the current administration and the implications for the future of American democracy.
