What is DOGE Anyway? The "‘Department’ of Government Efficiency" Under Scrutiny

Zac Krause

Edited by Harper Whittemore, Anshumi Jhaveri, Sahith Mocharla, and Jia Lin

Any examination of the news of President Trump’s inauguration in January likely imbues some understanding or awareness of DOGE (the Department of Governmental Efficiency). Thus far, DOGE has made significant cuts in the form of contract cancellations, real estate lease annulments, and layoffs across a broad array of federal departments [1]. As of March 31st, DOGE has taken action targeted at 15 different federal agencies [2]. They have marched into numerous federal agencies demanding access to sensitive information, sought to cut off funding to—or ‘delete’—the United States Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and emailed all federal government employees requesting that they detail the work they have accomplished in the last week [3] [4] [5]. 

Many of these controversial actions have drawn heavy criticism from figures across the political spectrum. Although there is certainly merit to examining each ongoing or impending legal battle on an individual level, this article instead reaches to the heart of the existence of DOGE [6]. As presently constructed, it remains unclear what kind of entity DOGE is from a legal standpoint, which is significant as issues related to the enforcement of corruption, accountability, and transparency initiatives take on greater scope. Before we can examine the legal and ethical implications of DOGE, establishing a fundamental understanding of what DOGE actually is takes precedence. Defining its purpose, structure, and function serves as a necessary foundation for the broader question: To what extent is DOGE subject to legal regulation, and under which laws? By examining its regulatory status, then determining the legal and ethics requirements it is subject to, an evaluation can proceed for whether DOGE meets established standards for ethics and transparency. 

What is DOGE? 

On the day of his inauguration, Trump signed an Executive Order: Establishing and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ to create DOGE, define its structure, and its scope of responsibility [7]. Based on the order as written, if nothing else, DOGE is a temporary organization within the Office of the White House. Yet the nature of DOGE is unprecedented and  quite ambiguous. In the history of the United States, no temporary organization or special advisory committee has ever been referred to as a “department”––a special title reserved for executive agencies with statutory authority such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of State [8]. After weeks of dodging the question and refusing to proclaim who was in charge of DOGE, the White House finally identified Amy Gleason, a USDS Administrator, as the leader of DOGE [9]. The White House has released no information about Gleason; however, it has come to light that Gleason has been simultaneously working in US Health and Human Services as a “consultant / expert” since February [10]. The Washington Post has reported that “DOGE staffers are sometimes listed at multiple different agencies, making the full nature of their roles within the government unclear” [11]. Then, in a sworn declaration, DOGE administrator Amy Gleason declared that DOGE has 79 directly appointed employees and 10 employees detailed to other agencies and went on to state that “USDS has no formal front office or organizational chart reflecting its current composition” [12]. Taking this ambiguity into account, the question arises: What is DOGE anyway? 

1. DOGE as a Department

The first assumption would be that DOGE is a department of the Executive branch of the federal government. It is undisputed, however, that a president does not have the power to unilaterally create an executive agency. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Osha (2022), the Roberts Court unanimously held that “Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided” (see also Buckley v. Valeo (1976), where the court emphasized that only “Officers of the United States” may exercise significant federal authority) [13] [14]. In two different lawsuits against DOGE and Elon Musk––in his capacity as the de facto administrator of DOGE––plaintiffs have also cited Justice Clarence Thomas’ timely concurrence in Trump v. United States (2024), the decision that created Presidential Immunity for official acts: “Although the Constitution contemplates that there will be ‘other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,’ it clearly requires that those offices ‘shall be established by Law’” [15].

Were DOGE to occupy the status of “department,” the administrative head would be a cabinet-level position subject to the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution, meaning the Senate would have to confirm the administrative head [16]. It therefore stands to reason that DOGE is in reality not a “department” at all and is only referred to as such nominally. 

2. DOGE as a free-standing component in the Executive Office of the President

The United States Digital Service (“Legacy USDS”) was established as a temporary organization by the Obama Administration in 2014 , but was eventually appropriated money by Congress in the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act, meaning it was no longer a temporary organization [17] [18]. Initially, its primary purpose was to improve websites for government services and, to date, its stated mission is to “deliver better government services to the American people through technology and design” [19]. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) falls under the Executive Office of the President, and this is where Legacy USDS has resided for years. 

In the executive order that established DOGE, the President claimed to simply be renaming the United States Digital Service (Legacy USDS) to the United States DOGE Service (USDS) [20]. Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall summarizes this effort by saying “When Trump and Musk created ‘DOGE’ they needed a shell to stick it into — because doing anything else would have required some work — and that shell turned out to be USDS” [21]. Trump also moved the USDS outside of the Office of Budget and Management so that it would be “established in the Executive Office of the President” [22]. According to the text of the order (and only the text) it appears that the mission and objectives of USDS remained largely intact in relation to Legacy USDS. In reality, however, DOGE has exerted and claimed to possess authority far beyond that of the Digital Service. 

3. DOGE as a Temporary Organization

The order further establishes that within USDS, as reconfigured, there is to be the “U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization” (USDSTO) [23]. This temporary organization is “headed by the USDS Administrator” and “dedicated to advancing the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda.” A temporary organization is “a commission, committee, board, or other organization that… is established by law or Executive order for a specific period not in excess of three years for the purpose of performing a specific study or other project” [24]. For example, Legacy USDS was initially established as a temporary organization by The Obama Administration to improve efficiency of the new Healthcare.gov website that was required by the Affordable Care Act [25]. USDS as newly envisioned––an arm of the Executive Office of the President––is not a temporary organization (given its status as a congressionally appropriated organization), yet USDSTO is, thus the difference between USDSTO and USDS is unclear in terms of not only its personnel and duration, but also its objectives. 

4. DOGE as Embedded Throughout the Executive: 

The same executive order also requires that “In consultation with USDS, each Agency Head shall establish within their respective Agencies a DOGE Team of at least four employees” [26]. In this context, “Agency Heads” refers to cabinet-level personnel who run official longstanding government departments and are subject to Senate confirmation. These embedded DOGE teams are tasked with “advis(ing) their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President‘s DOGE Agenda.” In another DOGE-related executive order, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” the President explicitly requires that “agenc(ies) shall not fill any vacancies for career appointments that the DOGE Team Lead assesses should not be filled” [27]. Thus, not only do DOGE members exist within other departments or agencies, they also exercise substantial authority. 

5. DOGE as Elon Musk

On November 12th, Trump announced that he would be appointing the “Great Elon Musk… to lead the Department of Government Efficiency,” claiming that the project will “become the Manhattan Project of our time” [28]. In front of the media, he said that he “signed an order creating the Department of Government Efficiency and put a man named Elon Musk in charge” [29].

Yet on February 17th, it was revealed by the Trump administration itself that Musk is actually not an employee of DOGE whatsoever. In the ongoing State of New Mexico v. Musk, which was filed by the Attorneys General of 19 different states, the Trump Administration declared in no uncertain terms that Musk “is not an employee of the US DOGE Service or US DOGE Service Temporary Organization,” and that he is instead “an employee of the White House [as a]... non-career Special Government Employee (SGE)” [30]. A SGE is a vague title and represents “an officer or employee of the executive or legislative branch… who is retained… appointed or employed to perform temporary duties” [31]. Then––suspiciously in contrast to those legal statements––in Trump’s Address to the Nation on March 4th, he boasted, “I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency: DOGE… Which is headed by Elon Musk” [32]. Regardless of the apparent inconsistency and the odd legal workaround this suggests, Musk is the de facto controller of DOGE, and considering his de facto management, Elon Musk as an advisor to the President is our final component of the potentially extra-legal conglomerate known as DOGE. 

Ruling out option #1 (DOGE as a Department), there remain four entities that can be said to comprise DOGE: 

1. The United States DOGE Service: exists within the Executive Office of the President and was formally the United States Digital Service. 

2. The US DOGE Service Temporary Organization: exists within the United States DOGE Service. 

3. DOGE Teams within each Agency: tasked with advising Agency Heads on how to advance the DOGE agenda. 

4. Elon Musk as the de facto administrator of DOGE: is technically only a “special governmental employee” to the President. 

Given this establishment of “What is DOGE?” an evaluation can take place to determine the kind of transparency, ethical, and accountability measures DOGE is subject to.

Part II: Is DOGE playing by the Rules?

On February 9th, Musk posted on X that “all aspects of the government must be fully transparent and accountable to the people. No exceptions…” [33]. Two days later in the Oval Office, he claimed that he was not aware “of a case where an organization has been more transparent than the DOGE organization” [34]. Since gaining his office however: 

• Musk has hardly answered any media questions and has refused to attend hearings with lawmakers, despite them urging him to do so [35]. 

• DOGE began its operations prior to President Trump’s inauguration and used an encrypted messaging app called Signal, which is widely used for its auto-delete functionality (and not approved by Congress) [36]. They have reportedly been using the Signal app as recently as February 27th. 

• Neither Musk nor DOGE have explained how they plan to utilize the access to the sensitive information they have been granted by either the Treasury Department or the Health and Human Services Department [37]. 

• The White House has openly claimed that they plan on keeping Musk's financial disclosure report a secret [38].

• A number of Republican lawmakers have even requested additional transparency in a meeting with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles [39].

• When the names of six DOGE employees were posted on X, Musk, in wanting to keep his employees’ identities secret, went as far as to respond over X, “You have committed a crime,” with no legal or statutory basis for his claim [40].  

Government transparency and ethics compliance are at the cornerstone of any functioning democracy, especially if such a democracy is to work toward the goodwill of the people. As James Madison stated, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy” [41]. If DOGE is going to exercise substantial authority across the entirety of the Executive Branch, it should be subject to substantial transparency and ethics requirements. However, given that DOGE is a legal miscellany comprised of many working parts constantly in flux, determining exactly what requirements it is subject to proves enormously difficult. 

1 and 2: The United States DOGE Service (USDS) and DOGE as a Temporary Organization

Transparency Requirements under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Concerned by such reports enumerated above, the public interest group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a number of FOIA requests seeking additional information on some of the inner workings of USDS [42]. FOIA, at inception, was intended to increase the public transparency of US Government Agencies and it defines agency records that are subject to disclosure and outlines mandatory disclosure procedures. CREW requested an expedited FOIA from USDS seeking all “communications between USDS personnel and personnel of any federal agency outside of the Executive Office of the President” [43] [44]. USDS did not comply with the FOIA requests, which led to CREW filing a lawsuit against OMB and USDS in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They claim that “The Trump Administration’s so-called ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ vowed to operate with ‘maximum transparency.’ It has done the opposite.”

In CREW’s lawsuit against USDS, Count III seeks injunctive relief to compel the production and release of FOIA requests of USDS documents. On February 27th, the Justice Department filed a memorandum in opposition to CREW’s request for a preliminary injunction [45]. In a footnote, they unequivocally claim that “USDS is not subject to FOIA” because “USDS moved out of OMB and became a free-standing component of EOP [Executive Office of the President] that reports to the White House Chief of Staff” [46]. 

On its face, the EOP is bound by FOIA, but this does not include any part of the EOP, “whose sole function is to advise and assist the President” [47]. And according to CREW in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Office of Administration (2009), in order to conclude that an entity within the Executive Office of the President is subject to FOIA, it must be shown that the entity in question “wield(s) substantial authority independently of the President” [48]. In the CREW Lawsuit, a federal judge ruled in favor of CREW, finding that “USDS’s actions… demonstrate its substantial authority over vast swathes of the federal government… [and] that indefinite delay in the release of the requested USDS records would cause CREW and the public irreparable harm” [49]. Thus, the court held that “CREW has established a likelihood of success on the merits of its argument that USDS is subject to FOIA” and granted the preliminary injunction. 

The ruling in CREW v. DOGE can be interpreted as a victory for government transparency; however, this ‘victory’ is merely a preliminary injunction that remains subject to additional hearings and appeals. Furthermore, regardless of whether a judge ultimately determines that USDS is subject to FOIA, Musk has repeatedly claimed that transparency is going to be one of his top priorities. For the government to go as far as to argue that USDS is not subject to FOIA principally runs unabashedly contrary to Musk’s earlier statements and should evoke skepticism in all interested parties [50].

3. DOGE Teams within each Agency – tasked with advising Agency Heads on how to advance the DOGE agenda. 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is intended to address concerns that Congress had with the growing number and use of advisory committees by Presidents [51]. According to FACA, “the term ‘advisory committee’ means any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group… which is… established or utilized by the President, or… established or utilized by one or more agencies, in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President” [52]. 

FACA requires “the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee” [53]. Based on the information that has been exposed by the media regarding the personnel of DOGE, it's safe to say that DOGE does not live up to this requirement [54]. FACA additionally demands transparency of advisory committees by requiring their meetings to be open to the public and posted in the Federal Register in a timely manner. Not to mention, interested members of the public must “be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements with any advisory committee” before they take actions such as contract cancellations. Despite the DOGE.gov website flaunting all of the contracts they have cancelled, there is no indication that this requirement is being or has been met [55].

By failing to maintain a fairly balanced membership and neglecting to provide transparency through public meetings and accessible records, DOGE does not uphold the principles of accountability and openness that FACA was designed to enforce, raising significant concerns about the legitimacy and integrity of DOGE.

4. Elon Musk as a “special governmental employee” to the President. 

As Trump's (very) Special Government Employee, Musk is “an officer or employee of the executive or legislative branch… who is retained… appointed or employed to perform temporary duties” [56]. As such, Musk is still entirely subject to ethics requirements. A US Department of Commerce Ethics Briefing for Special Government Employees outlines some rules that SGEs must adhere to before and during their tenure [57]. Firstly, “before SGEs participate in deliberative meetings,” they must file a financial disclosure report. On February 7th, the Administration claimed that Musk “will file a confidential financial disclosure report,” a grand 17 days after DOGE began operating upon Trump's inauguration [58]. Secondly, the law requires that such employees “may not participate in any particular matter that will have a direct and predictable effect on (their) financial interests” [59]. Musk is the world's richest man and, according to the Washington Post, he has had contracts with the government totaling $38 billion [60]. As a whole, six of Musk's companies have been investigated or fined a total of 32 times by 11 different agencies [61]. This is a clear and indisputable conflict of interest for Elon Musk. 

Beyond regarding Musk as a SGE, and instead considering him as the de facto leader of DOGE, he should be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act which requires that “that the advice and recommendations… will not be inappropriately influenced by… any special interest, but will instead be the result of the advisory committee’s independent judgment.” Yet to date, the White House has not said that any ethics professionals are involved in reviewing Musk’s actions––an action that could potentially be even more indicting given the administration’s own refusal to sign conflict-of-interest documents upon assuming office [62] [63]. 

Conclusion:

As evidenced in Part 1, DOGE exists in a murky legal and regulatory landscape, straddling multiple classifications without a definitive legal identity. DOGE does not neatly fit within the traditional definition of a department, an executive agency, or even a temporary organization, yet it wields substantial––and unencumbered––authority across the federal government. This ambiguity creates significant concerns regarding transparency, ethics, and accountability.

The lack of transparency surrounding DOGE raises red flags about its adherence to democratic principles. The ability of this entity to operate within the executive branch while actively avoiding and seeking to avoid traditional oversight mechanisms forms a fundamental challenge to our coveted framework of governmental accountability and separation of powers between the executive, judicial, and legislative.

The fact that the world’s richest man serves as the de facto administrator of DOGE exacerbates these concerns, especially in light of his unclear status within DOGE. As a matter of principle, the world's richest man should not be tasked with an operation to slash government spending and regulations when he has financial interests in so many industries. 

If DOGE is permitted to exist as an extralegal entity with broad and unprecedented authority, future administrations will likely seek to replicate this model, likely further eroding the checks and balances essential to American governance. Ultimately, if DOGE is to continue its operations with the goal of ‘efficiency,’ it must be subject to clear and enforceable legal constraints. Congress must act to either formally recognize and regulate DOGE or dissolve it altogether. Yet, regardless of the legal requirements DOGE may be subject to, the extreme conflicts of interest involved, or the dire need to preserve our checks and balances, DOGE is undoubtedly running afoul of its claim that it will be maximally transparent and must seek to remedy this for the Trump Administration to regain some semblance of trust from the American people.  

---

[1] Claire Dickey, Full List of DOGE Spending Cuts as Trump Marks One Month into Presidency, Newsweek (2025), https://www.newsweek.com/doge-spending-cuts-findings-one-month-trump-administration-2034150.

[2] Grace Eliza Goodwin, Elon Musk’s DOGE Has Worked Quickly to Cut Federal Agencies. Here’s a List of What’s Been Targeted so Far., Business Insider (Apr. 2, 2025), https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-agencies-musk-doge-targeted-list-2025-2.

[3] Laurel Wamsley, The government already knows a lot about you. DOGE is trying to access all of it, NPR (2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/03/11/nx-s1-5305054/doge-elon-musk-security-data-information-privacy

[4] Melissa Quinn, Judge finds Elon Musk and DOGE's shutdown of USAID likely unconstitutional, CBS NEWS (2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-finds-doges-usaid-shutdown-likely-unconstitutional/

[5] Selina Wang, Musk used 'What did you get done this week?' tactic at Twitter, ABC NEWS (2025), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/musk-week-tactic-twitter/story?id=119099997

[6] Julia Mueller, GOP grapples with mounting frustration over DOGE cuts, The Hill (2025), https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5208310-republican-voter-frustration-doge-cuts/

[7] Exec. Order No. 14,210, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (Jan. 29, 2025).

[8] Joe Hernandez, DOGE is making major changes to the federal government. Is it legal?, NPR NEWS (2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/04/nx-s1-5286314/department-of-government-efficiency-doge-explainer-elon-musk

[9] Kyle Cheney, Who’s in charge of DOGE? Not Elon Musk, White House says, POLITICO (2025), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/17/doge-administrator-elon-musk-00204639

[10] Kyle Cheney & Megan Messerly, The person the White House says is leading DOGE has also been working at HHS, POLITICO (Mar. 18, 2025), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/18/doge-leader-human-services-gleason-00237827

[11] Faiz Siddiqui, John Hudson and Isaac Stanley-Becker, 19-year-old Musk surrogate takes on roles at State Department and DHS, The Washington Post (Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/10/musk-doge-state-department-surrogate/

[12] Kyle Cheney (@KyleDCheney), X (Mar. 19, 2025, 9:58 PM), https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1902555219331891528/photo/1

[13] National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 595 __ U.S. 5 (2022).

[14] Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1(1975)

[15] Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___, ___ (Thomas, J., concurring) (2024).

[16] U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

[17] United States Digital Service, Two Years of the U.S. Digital Service, MEDIUM (Aug. 9, 2016), https://medium.com/the-u-s-digital-service/two-years-of-the-u-s-digital-service-e14af5ce713b

[18] Yarmuth John, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, (2021), https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1319/text.

[19] Will Weissert, Trump made DOGE part of the government. Here’s what that might mean, The Associated Press (Jan. 22, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/doge-government-trump-executive-order-1a2fb7235b9d6f178c764cf6c78d3317

[20] See [7] 

[21] John Marshall, A Little of the Pre-History of DOGE/USDS, Talking Points Memo (Feb 25, 2025), https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-little-of-the-pre-history-of-doge-usds

[22] See [7] 

[23] Id. 

[24] 5 U.S. Code § 3161

[25] How Elon Musk Co-Opted an Obama Legacy Project — And Weaponized It, NOTUS (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.notus.org/whitehouse/elon-musk-usds-doge.

[26] See [7]

[27] Exec. Order No. 14,210, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (Feb. 11, 2025).

[28] Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) TruthSocial (Nov. 12, 2024), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113472884874740859

[29] Andrea Shalal & Nandita Bose, Trump Appears to Contradict White House, Says Elon Musk in Charge of DOGE, Reuters (Feb. 20, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-appears-contradict-white-house-says-elon-musk-charge-doge-2025-02-20/.

[30] Declaration of Joshua Fisher – #24, Att. #1 in STATE OF NEW MEXICO v. MUSK (D.D.C., 1:25-cv-00429) – CourtListener.com, CourtListener, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69638651/24/1/state-of-new-mexico-v-musk/.

[31] Special Government Employees | U.S. Department of the Interior, (Aug. 13, 2020), https://www.doi.gov/ethics/special-government-employees.

[32] Sareen Habeshian, Trump praises Musk's DOGE cuts in address to Congress, AXIOS (Mar. 4, 2025), https://www.axios.com/2025/03/05/elon-musk-trump-speech-congress-photo

[33] Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Feb. 9, 2025 7:39 AM), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888583443962814811?lang=en

[34] Hugo Lowell, Elon Musk Appears with Trump and Tries to Claim ‘Doge’ Team Is Transparent, The Guardian (Feb. 12, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/11/elon-musk-trump-doge.

[35] Ivana Saric, Top Dem on DOGE Subcommittee Calls on Elon Musk to Testify, Axios (2025), https://www.axios.com/2025/02/12/melanie-stansbury-doge-subcommittee-elon-musk.

[36] Scott Patterson, et al., Inside DOGE’s Clash With the Federal Workforce, Wall St. J. (Feb. 27, 2025), https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/inside-doge-elon-musk-government-employees-b87fc17a

[37] Laurel Wamsley, The government already knows a lot about you. DOGE is trying to access all of it, NPR NEWS (Mar. 11, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/03/11/nx-s1-5305054/doge-elon-musk-security-data-information-privacy

[38] Kathryn Watson, The public won't get to see Elon Musk's financial disclosures. Here's why that matters., CBS NEWS (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-public-wont-see-elon-musk-financial-disclosure-why-that-matters/

[39] Kevin Collier, Pressure mounts on DOGE to provide more transparency into its inner workings, NBC NEWS (Feb. 27, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/doge-elon-musk-lawsuit-order-testimony-foia-rcna194119

[40] Peter Suciu, DOGE Employees Identified On X – Doxing Or Case Of Free Speech?, Forbes (Feb 4, 2025) https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2025/02/04/doge-employees-identified-on-x--doxing-or-case-of-free-speech/.

[41] James Madison, James Madison to W. T. Barry, August 4, 1822, (1822), https://www.loc.gov/resource/mjm.20_0155_0159/?sp=1&st=text.

[42] Crew v. DOGE page 9

[43] Id. 

[44] Id. Page 10

[45] Mem. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. DOGE Serv., No. 1:25‑cv‑00511 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2025)

[46] Id. page #

[47] Office of Information Policy | FOIA Update: FOIA Memo on White House Records, (2014), https://www.justice.gov/archives/oip/blog/foia-update-foia-memo-white-house-records.

[48] Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. Off. of Admin., 566 F.3d 219, 222 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

[49] Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service, No. 1:25‑cv‑511 (D.D.C.), Memorandum Opinion (March 10, 2025), https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-

[50] Elon Musk (@elonmusk), X (Feb. 3, 2025, 1:54 AM), https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1853079605596340235

[51] Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. § 1 et seq. (2013), Statute, GSA, FACA Statute (2013), https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/FACA-Statute-2013.pdf

[52] Id. 

[53] Id. 

[54] James Bickerton, Who Is Helping DOGE? List of Staff Revealed, Newsweek (2025), https://www.newsweek.com/doge-list-staff-revealed-2029965.

[55] DOGE.gov

[56] 18 U.S.C. § 202 (Definitions).

[57] NIST, FACA Training 2025: Prager (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2025/02/04/1.Prager_FACA%20Training%202025.pdf

[58] Kenneth P. Vogel & David Enrich, Elon Musk’s Business Empire Is Built on $38 Billion in Government Funding, N.Y. Times, Feb. 11, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/elon-musk-finances.html

[59] 18 U.S.C. § 208

[60] Elon Musk’s Business Empire Scores Benefits Under Trump Shake‑Up, Wash. Post (interactive), 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/elon-musk-business-government-contracts-funding/

[61] Desmond Butler et al., Elon Musk’s Business Empire Is Build to $38 Billion in Government Funding, The Washington Post (2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/elon-musk-business-government-contracts-funding/.

[62] Peter Stone, Elon Musk’s Conflicts of Interest ‘Should Scare Every American’, Experts Say, The Guardian, Feb. 27, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/27/elon-musk-conflicts-of-interest.

[63] Trump Ethics Plan Shows Little Effort to Avoid Presidential Conflicts of Interest, Campaign Legal Center, https://campaignlegal.org/update/trump-ethics-plan-shows-little-effort-avoid-presidential-conflicts-interest.