Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: BAD DOGE Act

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: BAD DOGE Act

U.S. President Donald Trump listens as White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, speaks next to a Tesla Cyber Truck and a Model S on the South Lawn of the White House on March 11, 2025, in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

Though it’s been cutting left and right, could DOGE itself be cut next?



The Bill

The BAD DOGE Act would repeal Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. The acronym BAD DOGE, a pun on the pet reprimand “bad dog,” stands for Bolstering American Democracy and Demanding Oversight and Government Ethics.

The House bill was introduced on February 24 by Rep. Dave Min (D-CA47). No Senate companion version appears to have been introduced yet.

Context

Elon Musk, the richest person on earth by a wide margin, leads President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency. Despite its name, DOGE is not actually an official “department,” but a special unit tasked with reducing bureaucracy, fraud, and waste.

(The acronym DOGE comes from an internet joke referencing a digital cryptocurrency called dogecoin, which Musk had previously promoted.)

In its nascent existence, DOGE certainly courted controversy. First, for moving to defund or eliminate USAID, which provides food and healthcare to low-income nations overseas, but which Musk called “a criminal organization” and accused of corruption. Then, for seeking access to millions of American taxpayers’ personal information through the IRS.

Many criticize Musk personally, for wielding political power despite not being elected himself, nor even being Senate-confirmed like Cabinet members. Others accuse Musk of using his position to benefit himself and his companies: for example, proposing to eliminate an electric vehicle tax credit that Tesla’s auto competitors use, or steering more NASA contracts towards SpaceX.

However, a few of DOGE’s ideas have also received bipartisan praise or at least bipartisan consideration, such as ending daylight savings time and discontinuing production of the penny. Not long after Musk first suggested it, Trump ordered the government to stop minting new pennies, even earning some Democratic support.

Congressional Democrats have tried to subpoena Musk, joined protests against him, asked viral questions about him during committee hearings, written letters about him to top government officials, and confronted the Speaker of the House in his office about Musk. But in terms of actual legislation, as the minority party in both chambers, there’s not much they can do.

What Supporters Say

Supporters argue that the government provides important – sometimes lifesaving – resources, which are now being eliminated by unaccountable and arguably unconstitutional means.

“Elon Musk and DOGE are attacking the very foundations of our democracy,” Rep. Min said in a press release. “An unelected and unvetted billionaire violating our privacy and deleting federal agencies does not promote good governance, it violates the Constitution. [The bill would] rein in the blatantly illegal and unconstitutional activities.”

What Opponents Say

Musk himself counters that DOGE stands against an ever-metastasizing government bureaucracy, which wastes too much of people’s hard-earned money.

He also contends that D.C.-area feds too often go against mass public opinion. After all, Republicans just won the White House and Congress, yet Democrats won more than 90% of Washington, D.C.’s presidential vote.

“If you say ‘What is the goal of DOGE?’ I think a significant part of this presidency is to restore democracy,” Musk said in remarks alongside Trump from the Oval Office. “This is not to say that there aren’t some good people who are in the federal bureaucracy, but you can’t have an autonomous federal bureaucracy. You have to have one that’s responsive to the people. That’s the whole point of a democracy.”

Similar Bills

House Democrats have also introduced other similar bills targeting DOGE, though without repealing it entirely. Here are five:

  1. The Taxpayer Data Protection Act would ban DOGE’s actions at the IRS, though not everything it’s been doing throughout the rest of the government. Introduced by Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI11), it’s attracted exactly 200 cosponsors, all Democrats.
  2. The MERIT Act would reinstate all federal workers fired by DOGE, with back pay. The acronym MERIT stands for Model Employee Reinstatement for Ill-advised Termination. Introduced by Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ10), it’s attracted 71 Democratic cosponsors.
  3. The Stop Musk Act would protect federal employees from legal retaliation if they attempt to thwart DOGE. Introduced by freshman Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR3), as her very first bill, it’s attracted three Democratic cosponsors.
  4. The LEASH DOGE Act would require DOGE to publicly list all its employees and advisors. The acronym LEASH DOGE stands for Legislative Enforcement Against Setbacks from Harmful DOGE. Introduced by Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA10), it’s attracted 17 Democratic cosponsors.
  5. The CLEAR Act would make DOGE subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, so more information about it could be released to the public when asked. The acronym CLEAR stands for Consistent Legal Expectations and Access to Records. Introduced by Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI3), it’s attracted 51 Democratic cosponsors.

Odds of Passage

The BAD DOGE Act to repeal it entirely has attracted five cosponsors, all Democrats. It awaits an unlikely vote in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, controlled by Republicans.

The Opposite Bill

Vice versa, a Republican bill would codify DOGE in federal law, making it harder for Congress or a future president to repeal.

That bill, which does not have a title, was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA48) and has attracted one Republican: Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL7). It awaits a potential vote in the same House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.

SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: Panama Canal Repurchase Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: Make Greenland Great Again Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”

Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term

Congress Bill Spotlight: adding Donald Trump’s face to Mount Rushmore


Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less