The Usurper in the White House: Is Punk’s DOGE Operating Outside the Law?

The Punk administration insists its Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is merely a benign “advisory body” to the President, a think tank nestled within the White House. Yet, emerging evidence from court battles and its own sweeping actions paints a starkly different picture: DOGE appears to be wielding immense, direct governmental power, making critical decisions that reshape the federal landscape, all while attempting to cloak itself from legal scrutiny. This raises a fundamental question: Is DOGE, headed in public perception by Elon Musk, operating as an illegal entity, an unauthorized power center, anathema to accountable governance?

The “Advisory” Charade vs. Agency-Level Actions

Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued before the Supreme Court that DOGE is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) precisely because it’s just offering advice. But the facts on the ground, as highlighted in recent court filings and news reports, tell another story. DOGE has been reportedly instrumental in the “mass firings of federal workers” across numerous agencies, the “dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),” and recommending the cancellation of federal contracts and grants on a massive scale.

As U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper astutely noted, “Canceling any government contract would seem to require substantial authority — and canceling them on this scale certainly does.” He found that DOGE’s actions demonstrate “substantial authority over vast swathes of the federal government,” not the passive role of merely “advising others to carry them out.” Indeed, Judge Cooper stated DOGE likely has independent authority to “terminate federal employees, programs and contracts,” concluding, “to do all three surely does [require substantial independent authority].” This direct exercise of power—firing personnel, nullifying contracts, gutting established agencies—is the hallmark of an executive agency, not a mere group of consultants whispering suggestions. If it acts like an agency, it must be legally constituted and bound by the laws governing agencies, including FOIA.

The Elon Musk Enigma: Power Without Portfolio, Accountability Without a Name?

The question of DOGE’s legality is further complicated by the ambiguous and deeply troubling role of Elroy Muskrat. President Punk has repeatedly and publicly identified Muskrat as the head of DOGE. Yet, in a stunning admission, Justice Department lawyers have stated in court filings that Muskrat “is not an employee of the entity and ‘has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself.'”

This presents an untenable paradox. If the publicly proclaimed leader has no formal authority, who is legally accountable for DOGE’s far-reaching decisions? Is it the “acting administrator,” Amy Gleason, a figure only highlighted after questions about Muskart’s role intensified? Or is Muskrat wielding de facto power without the legal responsibilities and accountability that come with a formal government position? Such a nebulous command structure, where immense power is seemingly exercised by an individual officially detached from formal governmental roles, smacks of an attempt to circumvent the constitutional requirements for appointments and accountability, pushing DOGE further into legally questionable territory.

The FOIA Fortress: DOGE’s Desperate Bid to Evade Public Scrutiny – And Hide Its True Nature?

The administration’s current, urgent appeal to the Supreme Court to shield the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit is far more than a routine legal dispute over document disclosure. It is a critical battleground that goes to the heart of DOGE’s disputed legality and its perceived attempt to operate as a shadow agency, wielding immense power without commensurate accountability. The very information DOGE fights so desperately to conceal could be the key to unlocking whether it is a legitimate advisory body or an unlawful extension of executive power.

At its core, FOIA is a cornerstone of American democracy, enacted to ensure government transparency and allow the public to understand the workings of its own federal agencies. It mandates that agencies disclose information upon request, with specific, limited exemptions. However, the law typically does not apply to entities within the Executive Office of the President whose sole function is to advise and assist the President directly. This is the narrow loophole DOGE is now attempting to squeeze through.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argues that DOGE is precisely such an entity—a “presidential advisory body” providing confidential recommendations, and therefore immune to FOIA’s reach. He contends that forcing DOGE to comply with discovery to determine if FOIA even applies “turns FOIA on its head” and constitutes an “untenable affront to separation of powers” by subjecting a presidential advisory body to “intrusive discovery” that would threaten the “confidentiality and candor of its advice.” Sauer has even warned that if the lower court orders are allowed to stand, foundational White House components like the offices of the Chief of Staff and the National Security Adviser could be “opening season for FOIA requests,” disrupting the inner workings of the Executive Branch.

But this defense crumbles when juxtaposed with DOGE’s reported actions and the explicit findings of U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper. As CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), the watchdog group that filed the FOIA suit, seeks to uncover, DOGE’s activities appear to far exceed mere advice. CREW is requesting specific, operational information: a deposition with Acting Administrator Amy Gleason, a list of federal contracts or grants DOGE personnel recommended for cancellation, and the names and oversight details of all current and former DOGE employees. This is information that would delineate DOGE’s structure, authority, and impact – precisely what an entity exercising “substantial independent authority” would possess.

Judge Cooper, in his March decision compelling disclosure, found it likely that DOGE is subject to FOIA precisely because its actions demonstrate such “substantial authority over vast swathes of the federal government.” He pointed out that “Canceling any government contract would seem to require substantial authority — and canceling them on this scale certainly does,” and noted that DOGE was “leading the charge on these actions, not merely advising others to carry them out.” He concluded that DOGE’s apparent power to terminate federal employees, programs, and contracts “surely does” require substantial independent authority. This reasoning directly refutes Sauer’s claim that the lower courts based their decisions merely on the “persuasive force of [DOGE’s] recommendations.”

The legal journey of this FOIA case further underscores DOGE’s determined resistance. After Judge Cooper’s order, which also mandated a deposition of Amy Gleason, the administration appealed. While a federal appeals court in Washington granted a temporary halt, a panel of judges on that same D.C. Circuit Court last week lifted its stay. They found the discovery ordered by Judge Cooper to be “narrow” and “appropriate,” clearing the path for DOGE to comply, with deadlines of June 3 for documents and June 13 for Gleason’s deposition. DOGE’s immediate emergency appeal to the Supreme Court is therefore a last-ditch effort to evade this court-ordered transparency.

This desperate fight against FOIA is not simply about protecting the sanctity of presidential advice. For an entity like DOGE, whose very legal foundation and operational scope are under intense question, evading FOIA is crucial to maintaining its ambiguous – and arguably illegal – status. If DOGE is, as its actions suggest, a de facto agency making and implementing policy with profound consequences, then it should be subject to FOIA. Its resistance suggests an awareness that the information CREW seeks would likely confirm its agency-like functions, thereby undermining its “advisory” defense and exposing the potential illegality of its broad, unscrutinized power.

The information sought by CREW – who works for DOGE, who they report to, what contracts they’ve axed, what processes they follow – would illuminate whether DOGE is a constitutionally sound entity or a rogue operation. The administration’s effort to shield DOGE from this basic transparency, therefore, can be seen as an attempt to protect an unlawful power structure from the disinfectant of sunlight that FOIA is meant to provide. The other Supreme Court cases DOGE is reportedly embroiled in—concerning access to Social Security data and its role in mass federal workforce reductions—only amplify the perception of an entity pushing far beyond any legitimate advisory role and desperate to avoid accountability.

An Illegal Power Grab Demanding Reckoning

When an entity created by executive order, led by an individual with no official government role yet wielding immense influence, executes mass firings, dismantles agencies, and cancels contracts—all while fighting tooth and nail to avoid public records laws by claiming to be merely “advisory”—it is not just an issue of transparency. It becomes a profound question of legality.

DOGE, as currently described and operating, appears to be an unconstitutional assertion of power, an agency in function but not in form or accountability. It is an attempt to concentrate vast governmental authority without the consent of Congress or the burdens of statutory compliance. This is not efficiency; this is a dangerous aberration that undermines the rule of law. The courts, and ultimately the American people, must demand a reckoning for what increasingly looks like an illegal usurpation of power operating at the heart of the federal government.