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

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
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less