Editor’s note: This column was coauthored by Seth Lucas, a senior research associate in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

Despite a smattering of preliminary injunctions and administrative stay orders from rogue federal judges, President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is well on its way to accomplishing its worthy goals. And despite what some out-of-control judges are saying, it is acting well within the boundaries of the law. 

Already, DOGE has exposed wasteful, potentially fraudulent, and truly bizarre spending of taxpayer funds to the tune of $105 billion. For comparison, that’s equivalent to about half the gross domestic product of Kansas and more than twice that of Vermont.

Unsurprisingly, DOGE’s work has elicited vehement howls from the parasites of government largess, particularly so-called nongovernmental organizations that have received billions of dollars. They have flooded the courts—engaging in very selective venue shopping to find “their” judges—with multiple lawsuits all alleging that Elon Musk and his team are acting outside of the law. 

“NGO” is really a misnomer when you consider that these organizations who call themselves “nongovernmental” are sucking so much money out of the federal government—like Planned Parenthood, which received over half a billion taxpayer dollars in just one year.  No way are they “nongovernmental.”

But contrary to what it might seem if you read the headlines of The New York Times or watch hysterical outbursts at MSNBC, so far the Trump administration has been relatively successful in defeating those trying to prevent DOGE from finding and stopping the waste of federal funds. 

To date, about 23 lawsuits have been filed to halt DOGE’s work. Only three have obtained orders adverse to DOGE—and none has successfully stopped DOGE from doing its much-needed work.

For instance, 19 states led by New York asked U.S. District Court Judge Jeannette Vargas to stop DOGE from changing how the Treasury Department performs its work, which included actually recording who payments were going to and what specific congressional appropriation authorized the payment.  

Gosh, what a radical concept—applying standard business accounting standards to the government! 

What did Vargas say to this wild request from New York? A resounding “no” to such “broad and sweeping” restraints on the executive branch. 

Instead, she issued a much narrower injunction limiting who could access personally identifiable information. 

A Maryland judge also entered a temporary restraining order barring “unauthorized” government employees—i.e., DOGE—from accessing personally identifiable information possessed by the Treasury Department on similar grounds. 

Those injunctions presume that Congress can limit the president from reviewing information held by executive branch agencies or authorizing someone to do it for him. That’s a dubious idea when it comes to the president’s inherent executive authority under the Constitution to oversee federal agencies and make sure they are following the law—if necessary, by checking in on their day-to-day operations.   

And then on March 10, District of Columbia Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that DOGE must respond to a Freedom of Information Act request. In his view, DOGE’s actual structure and work didn’t matter as much as rhetoric around DOGE for determining whether DOGE is an agency that is subject to FOIA.  

Otherwise, however, DOGE’s challengers are striking out. 

When unions sued to block DOGE’s access to data at the Labor Department and two other agencies, Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, denied their request for a temporary restraining order. 

Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, also refused to issue a temporary restraining order in another lawsuit challenging DOGE’s access to student loan data.

And when the Electronic Privacy Information Center broadly challenged DOGE’s access to agency-held information, Judge Rossie Alston, a Trump appointee, also denied an injunction. 

Even Judge Tanya Chutkan, who presided over special counsel Jack Smith‘s criminal prosecution of Trump and demonstrated on numerous occasions that she is no friend of Trump’s, could not find sufficient legal grounds to issue an injunction when 14 states claimed that Musk’s position and role were unconstitutional. As she explained, the states were only speculating that they would be harmed. But as a consolation prize, she did expedite the discovery process in their lawsuit. 

That’s not to say that the judges hearing these challenges are not sympathetic to claims that DOGE’s structure or operations somehow raise constitutional flaws. 

Chutkan, for instance, speculated that Musk might need to be Senate-confirmed and pontificated that DOGE represents an unconstitutional power grab by the president. 

At the end of the day, however, such speculation—which lies at the heart of many of these lawsuits—is just wrong. Speculations by a judge are totally inappropriate unless the issue has been raised and briefed by the parties, and the judge has examined all the facts, thoroughly researched the law, and come to a conclusion on the merits—or lack thereof—of the claims being made.

Keep in mind that it was President Barack Obama who launched the U.S. Digital Service, DOGE’s predecessor, in 2014 and appointed a tech engineer who formerly worked for Google to head the team. Even Obama had an Elon Musk—and no one cried foul then. 

Trump’s executive order simply renamed the U.S. Digital Service as DOGE and reorganized it within the Executive Office of the President—and a president has complete control over the structure, organization, and staff of his Executive Office. Neither Congress nor any court can tell him what to do within that office.

Aside from that realpolitik observation, Musk isn’t an officer requiring Senate confirmation. Obfuscating rhetoric aside, Musk has no actual power to change or cancel contracts, terminate or halt spending, or create any regulation. He is simply an unofficial adviser to the president with no executive authority of any kind. All he can do is make recommendations—which, as Trump reminded his Cabinet during their first meeting, agency officials can reject. 

It is Trump who is vested with the authority under Article II of the Constitution to carry out Congress’ legislative mandates. Thus, he has a constitutional obligation to ensure that bureaucrats inside the executive branch are complying with statutory requirements and that taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.

On top of that, the president has inherent constitutional authority to instruct executive officials to gather whatever information is needed to carry out those duties, unless there is a specific statute that limits the president’s authority, is within the constitutional bounds of congressional authority, and does not violate the president’s constitutional position as the head of the executive branch.  

The notion that federal agencies should police themselves and that the president has no authority to do that (or to receive advice on how to do that from anyone he wants) is nonsense. It is fundamentally contrary to the constitutional mandate that the buck stops with the president. 

That’s why Trump doesn’t need Congress to pass a law authorizing DOGE to do its work. He has inherent constitutional authority as the chief executive to ensure that federal agencies are following the law. 

At bottom, Trump can authorize Musk and DOGE to do what he simply cannot because of time and resource constraints on him. To argue otherwise is to suggest either that the president can be barred from ensuring that the laws be faithfully executed or that the chief executive must be omniscient. Neither is tenable—and the former is unconstitutional. 

Opponents of reform have retreated to the citadel of judicial activism in a last-ditch attempt to cripple the now-underway restoration of America’s political institutions. But contrary to their claims, DOGE is bringing much-needed sunlight to the swamp of bureaucracy that is the federal government today. And it is doing so well within the legal boundaries set by the Constitution. 

We can only hope that more unelected judges recognize that fact and stop acting like an imperial judiciary that can override the elected leader of the country. 

Republished from The Daily Signal.