David Berke’s letter (April 4) claims that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is an unconstitutional assault on democracy, accusing it of operating without congressional authorization and undermining the federal workforce. As a concerned citizen, I find his arguments overstated and misleading. Let’s examine the facts to set the record straight
Berke asserts DOGE is “illegal” because Congress didn’t authorize it. This ignores the president’s well-established authority under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which vests executive power in the president to manage the executive branch. Presidents have long used executive orders to create advisory bodies without specific congressional approval.
DOGE, established by Executive Order 14158 on Jan. 20, functions as a task force to streamline federal operations, much like President Bill Clinton’s National Performance Review, which Berke praises. That initiative, led by Vice President Al Gore, also began with an executive order and cut over 100,000 federal jobs through attrition and efficiency measures. If Clinton’s actions were constitutional, as Berke concedes, why is DOGE’s similar approach suddenly an “attack”?
The claim that “everything” DOGE does to federal agencies and workers violates the Constitution is equally unfounded. DOGE’s actions — like reviewing contracts, encouraging voluntary resignations through policies such as in-person work requirements, and proposing regulatory cuts — fall within the executive’s discretion to manage federal operations.
For example, the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision to overturn Chevron deference expanded executive leeway to reinterpret regulations, supporting DOGE’s deregulatory push. While Berke fears overreach, no court has ruled DOGE’s specific actions unconstitutional as of April 2025. Lawsuits, like those challenging Musk’s role under the Appointments Clause, remain pending without final judgments. Berke’s blanket condemnation lacks evidence of concrete violations.
Berke also criticizes Denise Lite for not addressing DOGE’s supposed illegality in her column (March 29). But Lite’s piece focused on climate policy and political rhetoric, not constitutional law. Expecting her to dissect executive authority in an opinion column is unreasonable — attorneys aren’t obligated to turn every article into a legal brief. This feels like a distraction from Berke’s core argument, which falters under scrutiny.
That said, DOGE isn’t beyond critique. Its broad access to federal data and Musk’s private-sector ties raise valid questions about transparency and conflicts of interest. If DOGE oversteps by, say, unilaterally defunding congressionally mandated programs, it could indeed violate Article I’s appropriations power. But no such action has been documented. Instead, DOGE reports savings — like $130 billion from contract cancellations by March 2025 — achieved through review processes, not illegal seizures. Congress can still check DOGE by passing laws or adjusting budgets, preserving the balance of powers Berke claims is threatened.
Berke’s alarmism mirrors broader fears about executive power, but it misrepresents DOGE’s role. The Constitution allows presidents to innovate within their authority, as Clinton did and Trump is doing. Calling DOGE a “coup” without evidence undermines legitimate debate about government efficiency.
I urge Berke to revisit the Constitution he invokes — it supports DOGE’s existence more than he admits.
Nancy Fairbanks
Stevenson Ranch
