Bull-DOGE-ing the federal government and, with it, America

As Elon Musk runs the country and attacks the government, Donald Trump seems to be OK with it because he took over the Kennedy Center. Also: Law Dork in the media.

Elon Musk believes that he controls the federal government now, and President Donald Trump is acting as if he largely agrees.

And, after U.S. District Judge George O’Toole found on Wednesday that federal employee unions lacked standing to challenge the Office of Personnel Management’s Musk-subject-lined “Fork in the Road” deferred resignation deadline, the Clinton appointee ended his order blocking the deadline.

Shortly thereafter, OPM sent an email to federal employees, which was reviewed by Law Dork, announcing, “The Fork in the Road is Closed.“

Reuters reported that OPM also responded with a statement: “There is no longer any doubt: the Deferred Resignation Program was both legal and a valuable option for federal employees." The only problem with that is that neither of those was established in any sense by the order.

That all, of course, is but one small piece of Musk’s government-wide effort to tear apart the current federal workforce with little, if any, regard for the federal laws that exist to restrain him — and anyone else.

On top of that, neither Trump nor Musk has sufficient knowledge of or respect for separation of powers and, as such, they believe not only that Trump is the head of a “unitary” executive branch but that the other branches play lesser — and subservient — roles to that executive.

Combine their view of Musk’s role (including hiding it from public scrutiny by claiming it’s covered by the Presidential Records Act) and view of government, and Musk appears to believe he is in charge of it all.

That much has been clear to anyone watching the misnamed “Department of Government Efficiency” as the snake of a non-department winds its way through agency after agency, taking over its systems and pushing career officials aside who get in the way due to concerns about process, privacy, security, or the law.

These actions have led to lawsuits and injunctions, as well as great harm, for people across the globe. A series of declarations filed in a challenge to the Trump administration’s USAID actions lays out how dramatic, horrifying, and unnecessary all of this has been.

As I discussed earlier, Trump created DOGE in reality by hollowing out a previously existing entity, the U.S. Digital Service; renaming that the U.S. DOGE Service; and then creating the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization within it until July 4, 2026.

On Tuesday, Trump purported to give Musk even more direct power — in addition to whatever indirect power he holds by way of Trump. In the January 20 executive order establishing DOGE, it contained this provision:

On Tuesday, Trump essentially made Musk the head of HR throughout the federal government by way of those “DOGE Teams.” In a Tuesday executive order, Trump declared:

It is important to note the context in which this is happening.

Although varying across agencies and in varying amounts and distributions within agencies, I have received reports — and others have reported — that contractors and probationary employees (those within their first year) are being fired.

I have seen return-to-office orders — that others have reported on as well — providing for specific dates that essentially push aside existing collective bargaining agreements to do so.

Expect litigation on all of those fronts.

It’s not only the context; it’s also the very specific future plans.

There is also another provision in Tuesday’s order that would blow all of this up even further:

Yes, you read that right: “The Plan shall require that each agency hire no more than one employee for every four employees that depart, consistent with the plan and any applicable exemptions and details provided for in the Plan.“

And, note that the exemption is for “public safety, immigration enforcement, or law enforcement.”

It works in conjunction with another provision:

Combining the “hiring ratio” and “reductions in force” provisions, the “Hiring Freeze” and “Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service“ executive orders of January 20 are effectively being bull-DOGE-d.

The hiring freeze order was supposed to lead to “a plan to reduce the size of the Federal Government’s workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition“ within 90 days of the order. The director of the Office of Management and Budget was to lead this effort, and it is referred to in the order as the “OMB plan,” although the Office of Personnel Management and DOGE were also to be involved. The hiring process order was supposed to lead to “a Federal Hiring Plan that brings to the Federal workforce only highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests” within 120 days of the order. That plan was to be coordinated by “the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy,” in consultation with OMB, OPM, and DOGE.

Instead, 22 days later, everyone got a second DOGE-related executive order all but supplanting them.

And it is a plan to destroy the federal government.

A newly filed lawsuit already is challenging the “reduction in force” element of Tuesday’s order as violating congressional requirements.

Despite Trump’s growing irrelevance in the actual governing of America, his attention this week has been on taking over the Kennedy Center. It’s an appalling move, and I will dedicate a newsletter to that issue in the near future.

---

Law Dork in the media

First up, I had an important discussion with Jennie Wetter about President Donald Trump’s many anti-trans executive orders — and the lawsuits challenging them.

Check it out at the rePROs Fight Back podcast.

Also: The Herald-Times covered the cancellation of the Indiana University School of Medicine’s LGBTQ+ Health Care Conference. Thanks to Brian Rosenzweig for reaching out. As I told him, in part:

“The needs of LGBTQ patients didn’t change because Trump and [Indiana Gov.] Mike Braun issued those orders. Those are still the same,” Geidner said. “If nothing else, the students, faculty and staff have a right to know who made that decision and why.”

Read the whole article here.