Trump, Musk, and the Constitution: A Crisis of Congressional Authority
A look at Elon Musk’s clandestine DOGE operation, the undermining of federal agencies, and the resulting constitutional crisis threatening U.S. democracy.
The latest events unfolding in Washington, D.C. have taken an astonishing turn, revealing an unprecedented power shift that is undermining the U.S. Constitution. Although Republicans currently hold majorities in both chambers of Congress as well as the White House and the Supreme Court, an unelected private citizen—Elon Musk—has been allowed to wield significant influence over critical governmental functions. By quietly installing a “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), Musk and a small team of young engineers are, in effect, bypassing Congress’s authority to dismantle or gut agencies they consider “wasteful.” In doing so, they have triggered a constitutional crisis that highlights an alarming trend toward minority rule—and, some argue, outright authoritarianism.
Republican Control and the Power to Legislate
Under normal circumstances, if the Republican-led government wanted to close agencies like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the proper course of action would be to introduce and pass legislation in Congress. With the GOP holding the House, Senate, White House, and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, there seems little in the way of political obstruction to such a move. Yet, they have not taken that path. Instead, they are permitting Elon Musk—who reportedly spent nearly $290 million in support of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates in the 2024 election—to assume extraordinary authority, without a single vote cast by the American people for his new role.
The Constitution is crystal clear: the power of the purse rests with Congress. The president also has limited authority when it comes to impounding—freezing or redirecting—funds allocated by Congress. As Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia emphasized in blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold trillions of dollars in grants and loans, “it is Congress, not the president, that determines federal spending.” Yet Musk’s DOGE team continues to disrupt key federal programs, ignoring or circumventing congressional mandates.
Enter DOGE: Reshaping Government from Within
Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” is spearheaded by a handful of young engineers, mostly in their early twenties. They have quickly gained access to high-level federal databases. Their first move was to take control of the U.S. Treasury’s payment systems—handling roughly $6 trillion in annual transactions—giving them access not only to financial operations but also to Americans’ personal information.
From the Treasury, DOGE moved on to USAID, whose foreign policy objectives align with State Department guidance. This breach potentially compromises national intelligence systems, as USAID often coordinates sensitive missions abroad. Afterward, DOGE targeted the General Services Administration (GSA), sending directives to regional managers to begin ending leases on federal offices. The Associated Press confirmed that the individual overseeing this initiative, Nicole Hollander, identifies herself on LinkedIn as working at Musk’s social media company, X.
In another alarming development, DOGE staffers have “deleted” the popular Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Direct File system, which helped taxpayers file returns for free. By undermining these programs, Musk effectively does what many extreme MAGA Republicans have publicly claimed to support—drastically cutting federal government functions—but without requiring any visible political accountability for elected GOP officials.
Constitutional Crisis and Congressional Pushback
Prominent Democrats, including Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Representatives Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Gerry Connolly (D-VA), attempted to access the USAID building but were denied entry by Musk’s new security protocols. Condemning this takeover, Representative Raskin insisted that “you don’t control the money of the American people. The United States Congress does that—under Article I of the Constitution.”
Senator Murphy pointed out a potentially deeper concern involving foreign powers. Since Musk’s global business dealings rely heavily on China, Murphy suggested that weakening USAID’s mission might serve the interests of foreign competitors. This perspective raises questions about whether corporate or international priorities may be influencing decisions that should legally rest in elected hands.
Trump’s Parallel Crisis: Trade Wars and Economic Turmoil
While DOGE undermines agencies from within, President Trump has been simultaneously renegotiating—or threatening to scrap—various trade agreements. He abruptly announced tariffs of 25% on products from Mexico and Canada and 10% on goods from China, ignoring trade deals his own administration had once championed. This sparked a sharp downturn in stock market futures, prompting diplomatic interventions. Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau each reached temporary agreements with Trump to pause tariffs for a month.
Notably, some of these “new” agreements mirror measures already implemented under the Biden-Harris administration, such as stationing troops at the U.S.-Mexico border and bolstering border security on the Canadian side. In effect, Trump is recasting existing policies as fresh victories. Tariffs on Chinese goods went ahead, and Beijing responded with tariffs of its own. Further escalating tensions, China also launched an antitrust investigation into Google.
What’s at Stake?
The overarching concern is that an unelected billionaire is effectively commandeering critical government operations, with scant resistance from elected officials. While the legal battles continue—federal employees’ unions have already filed lawsuits—Musk and Trump appear determined to maintain this shadow governance under DOGE. By allowing a single private citizen to call the shots, they risk rendering Congress irrelevant and violating core constitutional principles.
The gravity of these actions transcends partisan lines. It poses fundamental questions about how democracy should function when power is leveraged through personal wealth and political opportunism, rather than through transparent, legislatively mandated processes. As events continue to unfold, the American public and international observers alike are left to grapple with a central question: Who truly governs the United States?
References and Further Reading
- NPR: DOGE, Musk, and USAID
- AP News on Musk’s Moves in Government Agencies
- Judge AliKhan’s Opinion on Executive Spending Freeze (CourtListener)
- Washington Post on Education Department Dismantling
- SBA Report: Historic Small Business Financing Surge
- Axios: Democrats Protest at USAID
- Raskin’s Remarks on the USAID Takeover
- CNBC on China’s Tariffs
- AP on Tariff Dispute