I've seen that argument, but I don't understand it. The President has decided that executive agencies should operate according to certain new standards, charged the USDS with enforcing that, and put Musk in charge with a new meme name. Perhaps one or another of those standards is unlawful, but it's hard to see how the entire idea could be. What extra step is required to make DOGE legitimate?
The president is allowed to set standards for executive agencies. But his job is to faithfully execute the laws, and in doing so, he can't just shut down executive agencies by trying to fire everyone, and take them over with random people he appoints as advisors. Those agencies exist not for him to wield power over, but to implement our priorities as authorized by the Congress.
The way it's supposed to work is the executive sends an aspirational budget to congress that embodies his policy agenda, our representatives vote on the budget, the congress appropriates the money that we send the government to the executive branch, and then the executive branch spends that money, again, faithfully. That's the oath he took. What that means operationally is that he can't just defund things we voted for in the budget that doesn't match his political agenda. Doing so should be impeachable, because it would represent a breach of his oath. It doesn't matter that he has a different agenda, he's the president for everyone.
Since he's not doing it this way, that's why people are pointing it out as unconstitutional, and illegal.
For DOGE to be legal what it needs to operate in just an advisory capacity. It should recommend things to cut, but there has to be reasons, an auditable process, transparency, and meaningful oversight. For starters, Musk has a massive conflict of interest in that he's a recipient of government contracts. So he himself shouldn't even be part of this process without first answering to that. If we keep going down this path, the people advocating for it now will not like being on the receiving end when that level of capriciousness is directed against them.
I’m not sure if you’ve ever dealt with the US government, but people that work there are famously unmotivated. This isn’t about replacing people with AI, it’s about people that can be replaced with grep. I’m not sure what you mean by people advocating for reducing government spending being on the “receiving end” of reducing government spending.
Finally, this is not capricious, this is absolutely well considered. If you haven’t realised the government has spent vast quantities of money, printed advanced quantities of money to do it, and caused record in inflation.
