As Elon Musk reforms the U.S. state, some wonder where the institutional safeguards have gone

WASHINGTON - In less than a month, the brand-new billionaire-led DOGE has laid off thousands of government employees, frozen billions of dollars in funding, rummaged through the world of private data and left many Americans with a simple question in their mouths: How did it come to this?

The dizzying campaign to dismantle the Agency for International Development (USAID), tie the hands of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and give young tech engineers access to highly sensitive computer systems - including the trillion-dollar government-wide payments system - has many, public servants and non-public employees alike, stunned.

Federal government agencies have always been bureaucratic and rule-bound, responding to a strict chain of command, protocols and safeguards, but that also serves to protect vital social safety nets and national security, and to prevent abrupt changes or haste. So far.

Both President Donald Trump and the Musk-led "chainsaw commission" seek to defy or circumvent some of the thousands of statutes that regulate the operation of the state and are contained in the Code of Federal Government Regulations. Civil service experts say the speed and scope of the changes are an unprecedented challenge to those safeguards, many of which were not intended for a scenario like the current one. And while thousands of court cases have already been filed against the government's moves to dismantle large areas of the state, the response from judges has not been unanimous, and laid-off employees may have few legal avenues to challenge the decision to put them out of work.

"It's all so unprecedented that there's nothing in any of the statutes that provides for a situation like this," says Nick Bednar, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and a civil service specialist. "The firewalls we have were intended for moderately bad behavior, but they don't provide for an all-out, systematic attack on the traditional institutions of the state."

Several reasons made it possible for Musk and Trump officials to have been able to slip through traditional legal safeguards. Some, for example, have weak enforcement mechanisms or were never tested. Other rules, regulations and statutes are stronger and were already heavily used, but the government simply ignored them or declared that the president's constitutional authority is above them, hoping that the courts would eventually side with the White House.

Implosion

In other cases, safeguards to curb access to sensitive data or prevent a new administration from wiping out public agencies with the stroke of a pen were slim to none, because lawmakers and regulators never imagined that the world's richest man would seek to drastically reshape the federal government from within.

Moreover, two of the main checks and balances on the executive branch today are also largely disabled.

Congress and the inspectors general of each agency are the ones who traditionally monitor government excesses and malfeasance.

But four days after taking office, Trump made a purge in which he fired 17 of the most prominent oversight inspectors general, leaving oversight in the hands of underlings. As for Congress, the Republican Party has a majority in both Houses and so far did not rein in either Musk or Trump.

A senior administration official speaking on behalf of Musk and the White House said in an interview, "We believe everything we're doing is legal because of the powers it confers from Article 2 of the Constitution."

"We know there will be lawsuits, but every one of our government actions will be endorsed by the Supreme Court," the official added, noting that all of the DOGE's work has the approval of the heads of each agency, appointed by Trump.

The administration argues that its measures are necessary to root out fraud and waste in an elephantine and bloated bureaucracy. The White House asserted by fiat that Trump has the authority to fire career civil servants - despite a 1978 law prohibiting him from doing so without a legitimate reason - and cited his "power to remove subordinates" contained in Article 2 of the Constitution.

It is possible that in the long run many of the existing barriers could stop or slow Musk's efforts to collect mountains of private data and eliminate thousands of state jobs. Labor unions and Democrat-aligned groups filed lawsuits to block much of Trump's reform agenda, and federal judges halted some spending freeze orders and limited DOGE access to some sensitive Treasury data. So far, the court rulings allowed the government to go ahead with its massive offer of voluntary civil service retirements, with pay through September.

Legal battles

But these are many legal battles and could take years to resolve. In the meantime, the wholesale reform of the size and scope of the state has already begun, and could be difficult to reverse. "This is a massive assault on the legislative powers of Congress," says lawmaker Jamie Raskin, leader of the Democrats on the lower House Judiciary Committee, adding that he hopes Justice "will use the tools that are in place to stop the damage before it becomes irreparable."

A month ago, when it fired the 17 inspectors general, the White House personnel office did not give Congress the 30 days' notice required by the law governing federal watchdogs, nor did it give reasons for the wave of firings. Last week, a group of inspectors general filed a lawsuit against the government in court.

The White House did not argue that it has the authority to carry out the firings, but experts say the government is likely relying on the precedent set by a 2020 court ruling suggesting that the president can summarily remove officials appointed by him or previous appointees unless they are part of a multi-member commission.

In another case, the government asserted that Trump's authority is above the 1978 Public Employment Act, which governs the operation of the current U.S. state workforce. The law provides job protection for senior managers, prosecutors and other career civil servants. But in his sweeping vindication of executive branch powers, Trump still fired many of them.

Some fired civil servants are preparing to sue the state, citing barriers Congress put in place to protect their jobs. Experts, meanwhile, are keeping a close eye on the situation and wondering whether any of those lawsuits will succeed.

Lisa Rein

Translation by Jaime Arrambide

By The Washington PostAccordingto the criteria ofLearn More