The Trump administration and its Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team continue to push forward with sweeping changes to federal agencies, leading to mass layoffs and the abrupt shutdown of ongoing work.
This aggressive restructuring represents a historic power move by the president. However, the disorganized approach may be weakening the administration’s legal standing, as multiple lawsuits pile up and court orders repeatedly block DOGE’s actions.
“I hope that the court system is going to allow us to do what we have to do,” Trump stated during an extended Oval Office discussion with reporters. “We got elected to, among other things, find all of this fraud, abuse, all of this, this horrible stuff going on.”
Despite Trump’s claims of “fraud,” the primary targets of these reforms appear to be programs he simply disfavors, such as diversity initiatives.
Legal experts across the political spectrum, including both conservatives and liberals, have raised concerns over the administration’s abrupt moves. The freezing of vast amounts of federal funds approved by Congress, gaining access to sensitive Treasury payment systems, and attempts to shut down entire agencies overnight have alarmed many.
“From the chaos in and around the administration, to the chaos in the courts who are trying to grapple with it, and for all of us who are watching it happen,” said Adam White of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, “we can all agree this is no way to run a country.”
White pointed out that the administration’s lack of strategic planning and explanation makes judges more likely to question and reject its actions. Other experts on executive authority share similar views.
“Every other presidential administration in modern American history spends a fair bit of time explaining in legal language and in legal arguments why what they’re doing is actually legal,” said Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional scholar at Princeton University who previously served in the Clinton White House.
“Even if it appears like a huge power grab and almost certainly beyond the scope of the president’s power, they have some argument,” she added.
However, Pearlstein observed that in Trump’s second term, the administration has failed to present a legal justification for its actions. As a result, the DOGE restructuring initiative is not being implemented in a legally sustainable way.
She noted that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court might be sympathetic to certain efforts to expand executive power. However, she emphasized that experience in the White House quickly teaches that every major action should be reviewed by skilled legal advisors to ensure compliance with the law. Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who is leading the DOGE initiative, seem to believe they can act first and leave legal concerns for later.
“That seems to me pretty likely with some of the DOGE stuff to be what’s going on,” Pearlstein said. “And in part for that reason, a lot of that stuff is going to get struck down by the courts pretty quickly.”
Indeed, legal challenges have already begun to stall the administration’s efforts.
On Thursday, two different federal judges temporarily blocked Trump’s attempt to shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). One judge ruled that the administration must lift the freeze on foreign aid funding, while another blocked the government from placing thousands of USAID employees on leave.
Additionally, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Friday that DOGE will continue to be barred from accessing sensitive Treasury Department records and systems. That same day, another judge in Washington, D.C., issued an order temporarily preventing layoffs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that Musk has openly expressed a desire to dismantle.
Despite these setbacks, the administration did secure a legal victory in Massachusetts, where a federal judge allowed its controversial “Fork in the Road” resignation plan to proceed. The ruling determined that the labor unions that sued over the policy lacked the legal standing to challenge it.
Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute acknowledged that he does not support the administration’s chaotic methods. However, he questioned whether this flurry of executive actions is simply a temporary burst of policymaking energy early in the term.
He expressed hope that the pace would eventually slow down, bringing more clarity. However, he also posed a crucial question: “If this is going to be the style of governance for four entire years… we’ll see.”
Historically, previous administrations have also pledged to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending.
“Under President Reagan there was something called the Grace Commission,” said Linda Bilmes, a government efficiency expert at the Harvard Kennedy School.
“He charged the commission to work like bloodhounds—don’t leave any stone unturned in your search to root out inefficiency,” she explained.
However, Bilmes pointed out that both Reagan and President Bill Clinton worked within the existing system. Clinton and Vice President Al Gore sought input from civil servants to identify cost-saving measures. Reagan collaborated with Congress to pass lasting legislative reforms.
In contrast, Bilmes described the current approach as a more reckless assault on the system.
“Not only is this effort not accomplishing the task of weeding out inefficiency, but… it’s like cutting off your arm to lose weight,” she said.
In other words, while such drastic measures might appear effective in the short term, they ultimately create more problems than they solve.
Some political analysts suggest that the aggressive tactics of DOGE may appeal to Trump’s voter base and serve as a short-term political win.
However, even with Republican control of both the Senate and the House, along with a conservative Supreme Court, many experts find it puzzling that the administration is pursuing this confrontational approach rather than passing legislation. This remains an ongoing mystery for political and legal observers alike.
