Michael Cruz’s letter (“History vs. Current Practice,” May 9) misreads and misunderstands my defense of the Department of Government Efficiency against David Berke’s claims (Letters, April 4). My letter narrowly upheld DOGE’s constitutional legitimacy, but Cruz distorts its intent, misrepresents DOGE’s actions, and ignores Berke’s core argument. I’ll correct these errors and refocus the discussion.
My original letter countered Berke’s claim that DOGE is “illegal” without congressional approval, arguing it was constitutionally created via Executive Order 14158 under Article II powers, like Bill Clinton’s National Performance Review via Executive Order 12837. I emphasized presidents’ authority to form advisory groups, avoiding transparency or operational details irrelevant to Berke’s constitutional objections. Cruz fundamentally misreads this focus, pivoting to DOGE’s opaque processes and Elon Musk’s role — issues I didn’t raise or defend.
Cruz contrasts the performance review’s transparent, bipartisan approach and $136 billion in savings with DOGE’s less open operations and $165 billion in early savings ($130 billion from contract cancellations, $35 billion from suspended grants). This misinterprets my argument, which compared only the executive orders’ legal basis, not operational styles. Both are constitutionally valid, a point Cruz sidesteps by emphasizing transparency, irrelevant to Berke’s unconstitutionality claim.
Cruz claims DOGE underdelivers, noting savings fell from $2 trillion to $500 billion. While $165 billion is modest and unverified, it’s significant for six months, unlike the performance review’s years-long savings. Cruz misreads my letter by tying DOGE to fraud, which neither I nor Berke emphasized — my focus was efficiency.
Cruz raises valid concerns about Musk’s role and potential Appointments Clause violations, but misunderstands my scope. I noted these unresolved legal challenges, emphasizing no court has ruled DOGE unconstitutional as of April. Precedent supports private citizens in advisory roles, and Congress can check improper defunding, a balance Berke ignores.
Berke called DOGE an “unconstitutional assault.” I refuted this with the 2024 Chevron deference overturn and no adverse rulings. Cruz’s shift to transparency misses this legal rebuttal, engaging issues Berke barely raised. I never claimed DOGE is perfect, but its constitutional basis, like the performance review’s, is clear. Let’s improve DOGE’s methods, not dismiss its potential.
Nancy Fairbanks
Valencia
