Courts Halt Trump’s DOGE Initiatives — Chaos and Panic May Not Be the Best Legal Approach: NPR

The Trump administration and its Department of Government Efficiency continue to encounter significant resistance, closing down ongoing operations and terminating thousands of federal employees.

This represents a bold power move by the president. However, the disorganized execution may be damaging his prospects of gaining judicial support, as lawsuits commence alongside court orders hindering the DOGE team’s initiatives.

“I trust the judicial system is going to permit us to carry out our responsibilities,” Trump stated during an extensive meeting with reporters in the Oval Office this week. “We were elected to uncover all of this fraud and corruption and the terrible situations unfolding.”

The purported instances of “fraud” highlighted by Trump seem to be programs he simply disapproves of, like diversity initiatives.

There is significant worry among legal professionals, regardless of their political affiliation, about the administration’s sweeping and sudden actions, which include halting large amounts of authorized federal funding, securing access to confidential Treasury payment systems, and attempting to dismantle entire agencies overnight.

“From the tumult within the administration to the confusion in the courts attempting to manage it, and for all observers, it’s clear that this is not an effective way to run a country,” remarked Adam White from the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

White expressed that these measures seem poorly planned and articulated, increasing the likelihood of judges feeling confused and doubtful. Other experts on executive authority share this sentiment.

“Every previous presidential administration in recent American history has spent considerable time detailing in legal language and arguments why their actions are legally justified,” noted Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional scholar at Princeton University who worked in the Clinton White House.

“Even if it looks like an enormous power seizure and likely exceeds the president’s legal authority, they usually have some rationale,” she explained.

However, she mentioned that such careful elaboration appears largely absent in the current Trump Administration. Consequently, it seems they’re not implementing this DOGE restructuring initiative in a manner that would serve their own legal interests.

Pearlstein indicated that the conservative Supreme Court might be open to some of the president’s apparent desires to extend his authority.

However, she asserts that one learns quickly in the White House the necessity of having competent legal counsel present to ensure actions are undertaken correctly. She perceives that Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who is leading the DOGE initiative, seem to believe they can act freely and leave legal matters for later resolution.

“That approach seems prevalent with certain DOGE activities,” Pearlstein remarked. “For this reason, much of that might be quickly invalidated by the courts.”

And this is already beginning to unfold.

On Thursday, two federal judges issued temporary injunctions against the Trump administration’s move to dissolve USAID. One directive mandated the administration to lift its funding freeze on foreign aid, while the other barred the administration from placing numerous USAID workers on leave.

Simultaneously, a federal judge in Manhattan stated on Friday that she would maintain the blockage against DOGE’s access to crucial Treasury Department records and systems. Additionally, on the same day, a D.C. judge enacted an order temporarily halting layoffs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, another agency that Musk has expressed a desire to dismantle.

This week, the Trump administration did secure a legal victory when a Massachusetts federal judge permitted its “Fork in the Road” resignation offer to proceed, deciding that labor unions involved in a lawsuit lacked standing.

Adam White with the American Enterprise Institute remarked that although he is not in favor of the administration’s disorderly strategies, “the significant question is whether this is merely an exceptional burst of new policymaking vigor during the initial weeks of the administration?”

He expressed hope that it would be just that, anticipating that things would become clearer and slower within a few weeks.

Nevertheless, he pondered, “if this chaotic governance will persist for a full four years… we shall see.”

Certainly, this is not the initial administration to declare grand intentions to eradicate waste, fraud, and corruption within the government.

“During President Reagan’s term, there was a group known as the Grace Commission,” recounted Linda Bilmes, a government efficiency expert at the Harvard Kennedy School.

“The commission was tasked to operate unyieldingly—leaving no stone unturned in their quest to eliminate inefficiency,” she explained.

However, she mentions that both Reagan and President Clinton operated within the established system. Clinton and Vice President Al Gore consulted civil service workers to identify cost-saving measures, while Reagan collaborated with Congress to implement enduring legislation.

Bilmes noted that what she presently observes is a clumsy onslaught against the system.

“This effort not only fails to achieve the objective of eliminating inefficiency, but it resembles amputating a limb to shed pounds,” she remarked.

In other words, it may appear effective temporarily, but it generates more issues than it resolves.

Some political analysts point out that the DOGE’s aggressive approach to reforming Washington’s image may resonate positively with Trump’s supporters and could be viewed as a short-term political achievement.

Nonetheless, the rationale behind the administration’s approach—given that Republicans control both the Senate and the House, alongside a staunchly conservative Supreme Court capable of passing legislation—remains a perplexing enigma for many political and legal analysts.