In a striking power play, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has formally requested to scrutinize the work of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal agency that has, since the 1920s, served as Congress’s watchdog against waste, fraud and mismanagement. DOGE’s move comes amid its high-profile campaign to root out inefficiency across the executive branch, but the GAO—guarded by its status as a legislative branch entity—has flatly declined to participate. This clash not only highlights the growing reach of Musk’s budget-cutting initiative, but also ignites a broader debate over executive authority, impoundment powers and the independence of long-standing congressional oversight institutions.
Musk’s Watchdog: The Department of Government Efficiency
President Donald Trump established DOGE earlier this year with a mandate to identify and eliminate redundant or wasteful federal spending. Initially staffed by a small cadre of budget analysts and private-sector auditors handpicked by Elon Musk, DOGE has already issued audit reports on agencies ranging from the Department of Education to the National Park Service, claiming to have uncovered as much as US$170 billion in potential savings. Although independent reviewers have found that some of DOGE’s calculations rely on questionable assumptions—such as counting reinstated “zombie contracts” and hypothetical interest savings—the group has nonetheless captured the administration’s attention by issuing daily “efficiency alerts” and posting daily tallies of “funds saved” on its website.
READ MORE: Trump Says the U.S. and Iran Have ‘Sort of’ Agreed on Terms for a Nuclear Deal
DOGE’s request this week, disclosed initially by Wired, sought permission to embed a DOGE audit team within GAO to review its processes, budgets and performance metrics. According to DOGE spokespeople, the intent was to “benchmark best practices” and ensure that the nation’s premier oversight body operated as leanly as possible. Elon Musk, via a post on X, described the GAO as “our kindred spirits in pursuit of efficiency” and called for “total transparency across every arm of government.”
GAO’s Refusal and Assertion of Legislative Independence
In a brief statement released Friday, GAO Comptroller General Gene L. Dodaro rebuffed the proposal. “As a legislative branch agency, GAO is not subject to executive orders and has therefore declined any requests to have a DOGE team assigned,” the statement read. The GAO spokesperson declined to specify when Musk’s group first approached the agency, but emphasized that GAO’s funding—authorized by Congress at roughly US$900 million per year—and its mandate flow from legislative statute (31 U.S.C. §§ 711–716), not the president’s discretionary budget or executive-branch directives.
In practice, the GAO has no mechanism to accept external auditors from an executive-branch entity; its own audit teams report directly to Congress, and its independence from presidential influence is a cornerstone of the separation of powers. Attempts by the White House or any executive agency to oversee GAO would contravene the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act, which explicitly placed the GAO within the legislative branch.
The Impoundment Dispute as a Flashpoint
The timing of DOGE’s request is notable: at the same time, the Trump administration is embroiled in a legal and constitutional conflict over impoundment powers. Under the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, presidents are prohibited from withholding—or “impounding”—funds that Congress has appropriated without seeking congressional approval. Yet top White House budget adviser Russell Vought contends that the law is unconstitutional, arguing that the president’s Article II duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” implicitly grants the power to block spending he deems unlawful or wasteful.
In late April, Comptroller General Dodaro confirmed that his office had launched more than three dozen GAO investigations into alleged impoundments by executive agencies. GAO has the statutory authority to issue legal opinions on whether an agency’s refusal to spend appropriated funds violates the law—and, if so, to refer the matter to federal district court. In the past, GAO’s findings have laid the groundwork for judicial decisions, such as in 2020 when GAO determined that the Trump administration had improperly withheld US$400 million in military aid to Ukraine. That GAO opinion was later cited by anti-impeachment advocates in Congress as evidence of an unlawful stall in foreign-aid execution.
Potential Legal and Political Implications
By seeking to audit the GAO itself, DOGE risks triggering a constitutional standoff. Should DOGE persist in requesting access, it may force a direct judicial determination on whether the executive branch can investigate a legislative‐branch agency. Legal scholars such as Professor Elizabeth T. Browning of Georgetown Law School caution that such an action “could undermine the inviolable wall between the branches” and set a precedent for future administrations to subject congressional oversight bodies to executive review.
Politically, DOGE’s move has already drawn sharp rebukes on Capitol Hill. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, issued a statement declaring: “The law is crystal clear: GAO is a legislative branch agency not subject to DOGE or the president’s whims. It is an indispensable, impartial government watchdog, and its independence must remain. My message to Elon and DOGE: get lost.” House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) hinted at potential legislative remedies, including clarifying GAO’s protected status and curbing any executive directives aimed at internal legislative agencies.
Trump Administration Defends the Push for Efficiency
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows defended DOGE’s initiative in a briefing, asserting that “no arm of government should be exempt from scrutiny.” President Trump, addressing reporters at the G7 summit on Saturday, reiterated his support: “We’re cutting waste like never before. If the GAO wants to hide inefficiencies, they’re not doing their job. DOGE will shine light into every corner of government.”
Yet administration officials concede that any formal attempt to override GAO’s refusal would be purely symbolic; DOGE lacks statutory authority to compel the GAO to comply. Instead, the request may serve as a political statement, underscoring the administration’s commitment to budgetary discipline—even at the risk of infringing on established separations of power.
Historical Parallel: Library of Congress Dispute
DOGE’s targeting of a legislative branch body follows another contentious White House-Congress clash earlier this year over the Library of Congress. President Trump abruptly dismissed Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden before her term expired and nominated his former personal attorney to replace her—moves widely criticized by both parties in Congress as executive overreach. In both instances, the administration’s attempt to reshape or oversee legislative institutions has sparked bipartisan pushback and legal uncertainty.
GAO’s Path Forward
For now, GAO appears intent on maintaining its autonomy. Dodaro has not indicated plans to publicly investigate DOGE, noting that GAO’s charter gives it standing only to address matters of unlawful impoundment, not to police budget-cutting groups. Should the administration continue to assert impoundment authority, GAO is poised to issue further opinions and, if necessary, refer disputes to federal court—a course of action that could culminate in a Supreme Court decision on the scope of presidential budget powers.
Conclusion: A Watchdog Clash for the Ages
The confrontation between Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and the venerable Government Accountability Office encapsulates a broader struggle over the boundaries of executive authority in the budget process. While DOGE seeks to extend its mandate to every corner of federal spending, the GAO stands as a bulwark of legislative independence. As Trump pursues ambitious spending controls and impoundment claims, the GAO’s refusal to submit to DOGE underscores the enduring principle that no administration—no matter how determined—can subsume congressionally chartered oversight under executive whims. In the months ahead, the outcome of this battle may define the contours of budgetary governance and separation of powers for years to come.
