Separation of Powers: Can DOGE Legally Operate Outside Government Structure?

The fundamental principle of separation of powers lies at the heart of the American constitutional system, establishing distinct boundaries between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. This constitutional framework has recently come under scrutiny with the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which raises significant questions about whether such an entity can legally operate outside traditional government structures while wielding substantial influence over federal agencies. The constitutional tensions surrounding DOGE’s operations highlight the ongoing struggle to maintain proper checks and balances in our system of government, particularly when novel organizational structures challenge established legal boundaries.

Constitutional Framework for Separation of Powers

The American constitutional system deliberately distributes governmental authority among three distinct branches to prevent the concentration of power in any single entity. This constitutional design reflects the Founders’ deep concern about tyranny and their determination to create institutional safeguards against its emergence. The Constitution establishes this separation through distinct articles: Article I vests legislative power in Congress, Article II vests executive power in the President, and Article III vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.

This separation is not absolute but creates what political scientist Richard Neustadt described as “separate institutions sharing powers.” The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances where each branch possesses mechanisms to limit potential overreach by the others. Congress can override presidential vetoes, the President can appoint judges with Senate confirmation, and courts can invalidate both legislative and executive actions that violate constitutional principles. This intricate system of interlocking powers aims to prevent any single branch from dominating the others.

The Founders recognized that the concentration of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands constitutes the very definition of tyranny. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 47, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” This foundational principle continues to guide constitutional interpretation and shapes debates about the proper allocation of governmental authority.

DOGE’s Structure and Constitutional Questions

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) presents novel constitutional questions due to its ambiguous status within the governmental structure. Created by executive order on President Trump’s first day in office in January 2025, DOGE was initially described as operating “outside the government” while simultaneously being granted significant authority over federal agencies. This unusual arrangement has generated substantial legal controversy regarding whether such an entity can constitutionally exercise governmental functions without being subject to traditional oversight mechanisms.

DOGE’s organizational structure remains somewhat unclear, but it appears to function as a hybrid between a federal advisory committee and an independent organization with executive authority. The executive order that established DOGE renamed and reorganized the United States Digital Service (USDS) to become the “United States DOGE Service.” This reorganization has raised questions about whether DOGE is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which imposes transparency requirements and conflict-of-interest restrictions on advisory committees.

Multiple lawsuits have challenged DOGE’s legal status, with plaintiffs arguing that if DOGE includes non-federal members while being established by a federal agency, it should be subject to FACA’s transparency requirements. These requirements would include open meetings, public access to meeting minutes and reports, and balanced representation of viewpoints. However, if DOGE is considered part of the government rather than an advisory committee, these transparency requirements would not apply, but other legal constraints on governmental entities would.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Its Implications

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), enacted in 1972, establishes important procedural requirements for advisory committees that provide advice to the federal government. These requirements aim to ensure that such committees operate transparently and represent balanced viewpoints. FACA requires that advisory committee meetings be open to the public, that meeting minutes and reports be made available, and that the public be notified of meetings through the Federal Register.

If DOGE qualifies as a federal advisory committee under FACA, it would be subject to these transparency requirements. This classification would depend on whether DOGE includes non-federal members while being established by a federal agency to provide advice. Several lawsuits have argued that DOGE meets these criteria and should therefore comply with FACA’s requirements for open meetings and public disclosure of records.

However, the Trump administration has argued that DOGE is not subject to FACA because it operates as part of the government rather than as an external advisory committee. This position creates a paradox: if DOGE is part of the government, it should be subject to the constitutional and statutory constraints that apply to governmental entities, including proper appointment procedures and congressional oversight. The administration’s attempt to position DOGE as neither fully within nor fully outside the government raises serious questions about accountability and constitutional compliance.

Presidential Appointment Power and Constitutional Constraints

Article II of the Constitution grants the President the power to appoint “Officers of the United States” with the advice and consent of the Senate. This appointment power is subject to important constitutional constraints, particularly the Appointments Clause, which establishes procedures for appointing principal officers who must be confirmed by the Senate and inferior officers who may be appointed by the President alone, department heads, or courts of law if Congress authorizes such appointments.

The status of DOGE’s leadership within this constitutional framework remains unclear. Elon Musk, who has been described as “in charge” of DOGE, has not been nominated or confirmed by the Senate as would be required for a principal officer. The White House has made contradictory statements about Musk’s role, at times suggesting he leads DOGE while at other times claiming he is merely an advisor with “no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself.”

This ambiguity has led to legal challenges alleging violations of the Appointments Clause. Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has expressed concerns about DOGE’s constitutional compliance, noting that it may contravene the Appointments Clause, which requires that leaders of federal agencies be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The judge specifically observed that Musk did not undergo either nomination or confirmation, raising serious questions about the legitimacy of his authority within the governmental structure.

Congressional Power of the Purse and DOGE’s Actions

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to appropriate funds, commonly known as the “power of the purse.” This congressional authority represents one of the most important checks on executive power, ensuring that the President cannot unilaterally determine how federal funds are spent. Any attempt by the executive branch to redirect, withhold, or otherwise control spending without congressional authorization raises serious constitutional concerns.

DOGE’s activities have generated significant controversy regarding potential infringements on Congress’s power of the purse. Reports indicate that DOGE has made personnel and funding decisions affecting numerous government agencies, including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which Musk described as being “fed to the wood chipper.” These actions have prompted lawsuits alleging that DOGE is exceeding executive authority by making spending decisions without proper congressional authorization.

Representative Rosa DeLauro, a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, has characterized DOGE’s actions as “stealing federal funds from American families and businesses,” highlighting the constitutional tensions involved. The fundamental principle that only Congress can determine how federal funds are spent stands in tension with DOGE’s apparent authority to influence or direct agency spending decisions, creating a potential constitutional crisis over the proper allocation of spending authority between the legislative and executive branches.

Transparency and Accountability Concerns

Fundamental principles of democratic governance require transparency and accountability in the exercise of governmental power. These principles ensure that the public can understand how decisions are made, who is making them, and on what basis. They also provide mechanisms for holding decision-makers accountable for their actions. DOGE’s operations have raised significant concerns about whether it complies with these essential principles.

DOGE’s apparent exemption from public disclosure rules has generated particular controversy. By repurposing the United States Digital Service (USDS) to implement the “DOGE agenda,” the administration has attempted to sidestep Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) transparency laws. The Presidential Records Act exempts USDS from disclosing its documents, communications, and records to the public and in most judicial actions until at least 2034, creating a potential decade-long blackout of information about DOGE’s activities.

This lack of transparency contradicts public statements by Elon Musk, who has said that DOGE actions would be “maximally transparent” and that “all government data should be default public for maximum transparency.” The contradiction between these statements and DOGE’s apparent exemption from disclosure requirements has prompted legal challenges from watchdog organizations seeking to enforce transparency obligations. A recent court ruling by Judge Christopher Cooper found that DOGE is likely subject to FOIA, rejecting the administration’s argument that it is merely an advisory entity within the president’s executive office and therefore exempt from disclosure requirements.

Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Considerations

The ethical governance of public institutions requires mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest that could compromise decision-making in the public interest. Federal ethics laws establish important safeguards against such conflicts, including disclosure requirements, recusal obligations, and prohibitions on certain activities that could create conflicts. DOGE’s operations have raised significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding Elon Musk’s dual roles as DOGE leader and CEO of companies with substantial government contracts.

Musk has not divested from his companies, which continue to receive billions of dollars from the federal government and remain in disputes with federal regulators. SpaceX has received more than $14.5 billion in funding from NASA contracts, making it one of the agency’s largest contractors. This situation creates potential conflicts when DOGE reviews or influences decisions affecting agencies that regulate or contract with Musk’s companies.

The White House has stated that Musk would “excuse himself” if DOGE activities and his business interests conflicted, but the mechanism for ensuring this separation remains unclear. Reports indicate that at the Federal Aviation Administration, SpaceX employees have government email addresses, creating a conduit for federal data to potentially be accessed by Musk-owned enterprises. These arrangements have prompted warnings from members of Congress about potential criminal exposure for DOGE employees under federal conflict-of-interest laws, which carry penalties of up to five years in prison and substantial financial penalties.

Judicial Review and Recent Court Decisions

The principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison grants courts the authority to determine whether governmental actions comply with constitutional requirements. This principle provides an essential check on both legislative and executive power, ensuring that all governmental actions remain within constitutional boundaries. Several courts have recently considered challenges to DOGE’s legal status and operations, providing initial insights into how the judiciary views these novel constitutional questions.

Federal Judge Christopher Cooper recently issued a preliminary ruling finding that DOGE is likely subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), rejecting the administration’s argument that it operates as an advisory entity exempt from disclosure requirements. Judge Cooper noted DOGE’s “unusual secrecy” and its “unprecedented access to sensitive personal and classified data and payment systems across federal agencies,” expressing concern about the constitutional implications of these arrangements.

Similarly, Judge Tanya Chutkan has granted expedited discovery in a lawsuit challenging DOGE’s authority, allowing plaintiffs to seek information about “DOGE personnel and the scope of DOGE and Musk’s authority.” While denying an emergency stay requested by state attorneys general, Judge Chutkan allowed the underlying constitutional challenge to proceed, suggesting that the courts recognize the serious legal questions raised by DOGE’s unusual status and operations.

Historical Precedents and Novel Challenges

American constitutional history provides important context for understanding the current controversy surrounding DOGE. While presidents have historically created various entities to advise them or implement their policies, these entities have generally operated within established constitutional frameworks, with clear lines of authority and accountability. DOGE’s ambiguous status—neither clearly within nor clearly outside the government—represents a novel challenge to these traditional arrangements.

Previous presidents have established task forces, commissions, and advisory committees to address specific issues or recommend policy changes. However, these entities typically operated either as formal parts of the executive branch, subject to constitutional constraints on executive power, or as advisory bodies subject to FACA’s transparency requirements. DOGE’s attempt to exercise substantial governmental authority while potentially avoiding both sets of constraints represents a departure from historical precedent.

The controversy surrounding DOGE echoes earlier debates about the proper boundaries of executive power, particularly during periods of attempted executive expansion. The Supreme Court’s decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), which limited President Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills without congressional authorization, established important principles for constraining executive power. These principles suggest that DOGE’s actions may face significant judicial scrutiny, particularly if they appear to usurp legislative functions or operate outside established constitutional frameworks.

Implications for Agency Independence and Regulatory Authority

The American administrative state includes numerous independent agencies designed to operate with some insulation from direct presidential control. These agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve, are structured to make expert, nonpartisan decisions within their areas of authority. DOGE’s apparent influence over these agencies raises important questions about whether it undermines their intended independence and the statutory frameworks that establish their authority.

President Trump recently signed an executive order attempting to give himself greater control over independent agencies and to allow the Office of Management and Budget head to control their spending. This executive order, combined with DOGE’s activities, suggests a broader effort to centralize control over the administrative state in ways that may conflict with congressional intent in establishing independent agencies.

The potential impact on regulatory authority is particularly significant. If DOGE can influence or direct the activities of regulatory agencies without being subject to the normal constraints on executive power, it could undermine the regulatory frameworks established by Congress. This situation raises fundamental questions about whether agencies can fulfill their statutory mandates when subject to direction from an entity with ambiguous constitutional status and potentially conflicting private interests.

State Challenges and Federalism Concerns

The principle of federalism establishes a division of authority between the federal government and the states, with each possessing sovereign powers in their respective spheres. This constitutional arrangement creates important checks on federal power and protects state autonomy in areas reserved to the states. DOGE’s activities have prompted challenges from state officials concerned about potential infringements on state interests and the proper federal-state balance.

Fourteen state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit challenging DOGE’s authority, arguing that its actions violate the Appointments Clause and threaten state interests. These states seek to block Musk and DOGE workers from continuing their access to data and ability to order firings in departments across the federal government. While their request for an emergency stay was denied, the underlying lawsuit continues, reflecting serious concerns about DOGE’s impact on federalism principles.

The states have argued that DOGE’s actions have “significantly harmed the States and will continue to do so,” suggesting that its decisions affect state programs and interests. Judge Tanya Chutkan has granted these states expedited discovery to “identify DOGE personnel and the scope of DOGE and Musk’s authority,” recognizing the legitimate interest states have in understanding how this novel entity might affect their relationship with the federal government.

Potential Legislative Responses and Reforms

Congress possesses significant authority to address concerns about DOGE through legislative action. As the branch vested with legislative power under Article I, Congress can enact statutes clarifying the legal status of entities like DOGE, imposing transparency requirements, or otherwise constraining executive authority to create and empower such entities. Several potential legislative responses could address the constitutional questions raised by DOGE’s operations.

Congress could amend FACA to clarify its application to entities like DOGE, ensuring that hybrid organizations neither clearly within nor clearly outside the government are subject to appropriate transparency requirements. Similarly, Congress could enact legislation specifically addressing DOGE’s status, subjecting it to clear statutory constraints and oversight mechanisms.

More broadly, Congress could consider reforms to strengthen the separation of powers and prevent similar constitutional ambiguities in the future. These reforms might include clearer statutory definitions of executive branch entities, stronger transparency requirements, and more robust conflict-of-interest provisions. By exercising its legislative authority, Congress could resolve the constitutional uncertainties surrounding DOGE and establish clearer boundaries for future executive actions.

Conclusion: Constitutional Principles and Governmental Innovation

The controversy surrounding DOGE highlights the ongoing tension between governmental innovation and constitutional principles. While presidents have legitimate interests in improving government efficiency and effectiveness, these interests must be pursued within constitutional boundaries that preserve the separation of powers, ensure accountability, and protect against conflicts of interest. DOGE’s ambiguous status—neither clearly within nor clearly outside the government—creates significant constitutional questions that courts are now beginning to address.

The resolution of these questions will have important implications for the future of executive power and the constitutional framework that constrains it. If courts ultimately determine that DOGE can exercise substantial governmental authority while avoiding traditional constitutional constraints, it could significantly alter the balance of power among the branches. Conversely, if courts impose clear constitutional limitations on DOGE’s operations, it would reaffirm the enduring importance of separation of powers principles in constraining executive action.

As these legal challenges proceed, they will test whether our constitutional system can accommodate novel governmental structures while preserving its fundamental principles. The outcome will shape not only DOGE’s future but also broader understandings of executive power, transparency requirements, and the proper relationship among the branches of government in our constitutional system.

The controversy surrounding DOGE thus represents more than a dispute about a particular governmental entity; it reflects ongoing debates about the nature of executive power, the role of private actors in governmental functions, and the enduring importance of constitutional constraints in preserving democratic governance. As courts continue to address these questions, they will help determine whether entities like DOGE represent legitimate innovations within our constitutional system or troubling departures from its fundamental principles.

Citations:

1. https://lawreview.syr.edu/department-of-government-efficiency-faces-initial-hurdles/
2. https://campaignlegal.org/update/clc-sues-stop-elon-musk-and-doges-lawless-unconstitutional-power-grab
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/us/politics/doge-elon-musk-lawsuits.html
4. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/federal-courts/the-legal-battles-over-doges-powers-and-federal-spending/
5. https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/judge-chutkan-musk-doge-authority-lawsuit-rcna196211
6. https://americanoversight.org/american-oversight-applauds-court-ruling-that-doges-inner-workings-cannot-be-concealed-from-public-view/
7. https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2025/03/11/federal-judge-rules-doge-must-disclose-records-about-its-operation-to-comply-with-federal-transparency-law/
8. https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-trump-musk-funding-foia-congress-transparency
9. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/03/09/behind-musk-s-doge-a-collection-of-potential-conflicts-of-interest_6738962_13.html
10. https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-details-musks-doge-agency-raise-questions-scope/story?id=118046176
11. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-doge-not-employee-no-authority-white-house-says/
12. https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=6430
13. https://americanoversight.org/press/ethics-watchdog-issues-conflict-of-interest-warning-to-musks-doge-agency/
14. https://huntsvillebusinessjournal.com/news/2025/02/19/elon-musks-doge-auditing-nasa-a-conflict-of-interest-with-big-consequences-for-huntsville/
15. https://statedemocracydefenders.org/fund/new-lawsuit-challenges-legitimacy-of-elon-musk-and-doges-authority-under-the-constitution/
16. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-is-doge-abusing-its-power/
17. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/27/is-what-doge-doing-even-legal/
18. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-doge-cutbacks-could-create-a-major-backlash/
19. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/03/executive-order-on-doge-cost-efficiency-major-changes-in-federal
20. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency/
21. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency-workforce-optimization-initiative/
22. https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5165936-elon-musk-doge-government-efficiency/
23. https://www.nextgov.com/people/2025/02/musks-doge-efforts-pose-constitutional-crisis-experts-warn/402778/
24. https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/department-government-efficiency-doge.html
25. https://www.gibsondunn.com/the-doge-has-arrived/
26. https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/the-legal-challenges-to-elon-musks-doge-explained/
27. https://san.com/cc/judge-orders-doge-to-turn-over-records-answer-questions-about-downsizing-govt/
28. https://www.epi.org/blog/doge-power-to-destroy/
29. https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-donald-trump-doge-legal-victories-faf05e6c80a488fe01edbccccd9207e8
30. https://www.newsweek.com/doge-department-government-efficiency-elon-musk-tanya-chutkan-federal-court-washington-new-mexico-2044006
31. https://campaignlegal.org/cases-actions/halting-elon-musk-and-doges-lawless-control-government-japanese-american-citizens
32. https://min.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-dave-min-introduces-bill-repeal-executive-order-creating-doge
33. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/doge-musk-court-privacy-sensitive-data-00211749
34. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/18/g-s1-49450/elon-musk-doge-leader
35. https://nypost.com/2025/03/13/us-news/elon-musk-doge-ordered-to-release-internal-records-explain-mass-slashings-and-firings/
36. https://americanoversight.org/american-oversight-files-amended-foia-lawsuit-against-doge/
37. https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-must-turn-over-034950105.html
38. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/us/politics/musk-doge-foia-lawsuit.html
39. https://www.admonsters.com/doges-unfettered-access-to-pii-prompts-legal-challenges/
40. https://san.com/cc/judge-rules-doge-not-exempt-from-open-records-laws/
41. https://www.nextgov.com/people/2025/03/lawsuit-outlines-how-doge-pushed-access-social-security-systems-and-data/403630/
42. https://apnews.com/article/social-security-doge-lawsuit-data-protection-ab30a5f446914b93aff84188558c1416
43. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/11/nx-s1-5305054/doge-elon-musk-security-data-information-privacy
44. https://reason.com/2025/03/11/doge-isnt-exempt-from-foia-requests-judge-rules/
45. https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-doge-subcommittees-first-hearing-uncovers-billions-lost-to-fraud-and-improper-payments-launches-war-on-waste/
46. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-seeks-records-on-doges-unrestricted-access-to-americans-data-urges-congress-to-step-up
47. https://govspend.com/blog/on-doge-and-transparency-a-note-from-our-ceo/
48. https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-campbell-challenges-doges-unauthorized-access-to-americans-private-data
49. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/11/judge-doge-foia-crew/82264573007/
50. https://taxproject.org/government-efficiency-doge-transparency-and-accountability/
51. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/doges-access-to-health-financial-records-draws-union-challenge
52. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/politics/musk-trump-conflicts-of-interest/index.html
53. https://www.capetownetc.com/news/doge-news-today/employees-depart-doge-project-amid-ethical-concerns/
54. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/president-trump/musk-says-doge-plans-to-double-staff/3774300/
55. https://larson.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/larson.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Ending%20DOGE%20Conflicts%20Fact%20Sheet%20(1).pdf
56. https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/01/doge-agency-deployments-raise-ethical-and-influence-concerns/402204/
57. https://www.wired.com/story/uncanny-valley-news-update-doge-conflicts-elon-musk-email-chaos/
58. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/27/1234145488/doge-work-could-cross-extreme-ethical-and-legal-lines-says-former-employee
59. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/potential-conflicts-of-interest-elon-musk-tesla-and-doge/3789346/
60. https://www.barrons.com/articles/is-musk-doge-employee-ethics-rules-777e0efa
61. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/04/nx-s1-5286314/department-of-government-efficiency-doge-explainer-elon-musk
62. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/2/8/do-elon-musk-and-doge-have-power-to-close-us-government-agencies
63. https://spigglelaw.com/trumps-department-of-government-efficiency-doge-what-it-means-for-federal-employees/
64. https://www.gibsondunn.com/doge-details-the-knowns-and-unknowns-of-trump-cost-cutting-board/
65. https://fedscoop.com/federal-worker-legal-challenges-doge-schedule-f/
66. https://techpolicy.press/how-congress-can-delete-doge
67. https://campaignlegal.org/press-releases/campaign-legal-center-sues-elon-musk-and-doge-exercising-unchecked-power-and-harming
68. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/24/judge-questions-constitutionality-doge-elon-musk-00205866
69. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2025/0207/musk-doge-lawsuits-constitution-congress
70. https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-orders-doge-to-release-records-citing-its-unusual-secrecy-2025-3
71. https://abcnews.go.com/US/doges-secrecy-tested-court-sworn-testimony-depositions/story?id=119552870
72. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/14-states-file-lawsuit-trump-elon-musk-doge-authority-unconstitutional-rcna192143
73. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-says-musks-doge-must-release-records-operations-run-secrecy-2025-03-11/
74. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5187282-doge-open-records-judge-rules/
75. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1iwf9ff/cmv_doge_is_guessing_government_transparency_is/
76. https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-elon-musk-hud-housing-discrimination-privacy-domestic-violence
77. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/10/politics/doge-freedom-of-information-act-foia-ruling/index.html
78. https://campaignlegal.org/update/clc-files-legal-demand-accountability-and-transparency-doge
79. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/musk-says-doge-almost-every-federal-agency-plans-double-staff-rcna195735
80. https://www.pogo.org/investigations/elon-musks-doge-teams-raise-vetting-ethics-concerns