The US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is facing at least three lawsuits that have already been filed against it. The lawsuits allege that billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The 1972 law regulating government advisory committees ensures transparency and accountability within them. Trump’s reputation for disregarding norms, coupled with the tech industry’s habit of “moving fast and breaking things,” means that these legal challenges to DOGE, and even to the administration more broadly, could have difficulty finding purchase. Trump’s administration may outrun legal challenges against DOGE The three lawsuits against DOGE were all filed on January 20, the day Trump was sworn in. The legal claims stem from the position that DOGE, a newly formed advisory body, operates outside the constraints of FACA, a law passed in 1972 to regulate the growing number of government advisory bodies. FACA requires open meetings, balanced representation, and thorough documentation, all of which the plaintiffs claim DOGE has not complied with. The situation is exciting because of the speed at which Trump’s administration moves. It’s not only a matter of wanting to ‘break things.’ It’s about choosing a fast and decisive course of action in a government that is notorious for its slowness. Musk challenges Washington’s bureaucracy DOGE’s legal woes offer a broader ideological clash. One thing is sure: Musk and the other tech moguls entering politics have a record of acting quickly, with little concern for red tape. From electric vehicles to space exploration, this culture of “moving fast and breaking things” has been a hallmark of Silicon Valley. But this is politics, which comes with massive amounts of inertia typical of Washington’s long-standing bureaucracy. Aaron Brogan, a lawyer specializing in cryptocurrency and technology regulation, notes that official actions are encumbered by hundreds of years of sclerotic bureaucracy and mandatory processes. Musk’s fast, tech-driven approach may soon compete with Washington’s methods. The problem is that legal challenges take time to resolve, and without an immediate injunction, DOGE can keep running as it wants for months before the courts can stop it. But there’s more at play here. If the administration can keep the legal fight going long enough, they may be able to sidestep the legal framework entirely. Similar to how President Andrew Jackson once defied the Supreme Court’s ruling on Native American land rights, Trump could simply choose to ignore court rulings he doesn’t like. It’s an audacious gambit, and only time will tell whether it will work. The three lawsuits targeting DOGE have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. However, as of January 22, none contained an injunction or a restraining order against the agency. Therefore, DOGE will function normally until the legal challenges are resolved, giving the administration time to push through its agenda. The plaintiffs in the case argue that DOGE is tech industry-heavy and, as such, fails to meet the FACA’s requirement of “fairly balanced” advisory committees. There is no representation on the committee for federal workers who will be impacted by its proposed reforms, such as layoffs. Legal hurdles obstruct DOGE’s sweeping changes DOGE hopes to make some significant changes. Still, the plaintiffs argue those changes are inherently biased if proper representation is lacking. The court’s ruling could become another cultural war battlefront between Silicon Valley and Washington, with legal interpretations serving as the pivot. Perhaps the most telling aspect of this legal saga is the clash between the tech industry’s impatience and Washington’s slow-moving bureaucracy. Andrew Rossow, a digital media attorney, suggests that the “move fast and break things” mentality could backfire if DOGE doesn’t comply with the FACA’s transparency requirements. Rossow says the law was passed to ensure that government advisory boards aren’t used to exert “undue influence.” It’s hard to see how DOGE can function without following these rules, but the Trump administration might still try to push for it. If DOGE and its tech-driven leadership will not engage in a constitutional showdown, then they will have to reconcile their desire to ‘disrupt’ with the accountability that FACA demands.
