DOGE in America: Constitutional, Legal, and Ethical Concerns of an Unprecedented Power Structure

by Claude

Introduction

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created by executive order under President Donald Trump's administration in 2025 and led by billionaire Elon Musk, represents one of the most significant restructurings of American government administration in recent history. Ostensibly created to reduce government waste and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, DOGE has quickly expanded its influence across multiple federal agencies, raising profound questions about constitutional boundaries, legal compliance, privacy protections, ethical governance, and the proper stewardship of democratic institutions.

This essay examines the multifaceted implications of DOGE's activities based on the available documentation. It explores constitutional questions regarding separation of powers and executive authority, legal compliance issues regarding administrative procedures and employment law, privacy concerns about handling sensitive government data, ethical dilemmas in governance, and the adequacy of oversight and accountability mechanisms. Finally, it considers remedies and countermeasures available to various stakeholders to address potential overreach.

Constitutional Questions

Separation of Powers

DOGE's rapid rise and broad authority directly challenges the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The U.S. Constitution divides authority among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to prevent concentration of power. Several aspects of DOGE's operations have raised concerns in this context:

1. Executive Overreach: By issuing an executive order to create a body with such sweeping authority over multiple government agencies, the Trump administration may have circumvented Congress's appropriations power and oversight role. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to establish government departments and appropriate funds.

2. Judicial Defiance: According to multiple reports, DOGE has continued operations despite judicial orders limiting its activities, particularly regarding access to sensitive government systems at the Treasury Department. This represents a potential constitutional crisis where the executive branch refuses to acknowledge the judiciary's authority.

3. Congressional Bypass: DOGE's unilateral cancellation of government programs and contracts, including reportedly eliminating 255 USAID programs, 185 HHS programs, and other initiatives, may intrude upon Congress's legislative authority to establish and fund federal programs.

Senator Murphy's description of DOGE as representing "the most corrupt" administration highlights the concern that DOGE operates outside established constitutional guardrails, potentially upsetting the careful balance envisioned by the framers.

Due Process Violations

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." DOGE's mass firing of federal employees, particularly those in probationary periods, raises serious due process concerns:

1. Mass Terminations: The documents indicate widespread dismissals across agencies without individualized assessment—particularly at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), where DOGE terminated 17% of the workforce, including critical personnel responsible for maintaining nuclear warheads.

2. Probationary Focus: DOGE has reportedly targeted probationary employees for termination without cause, potentially circumventing civil service protections designed to ensure merit-based employment decisions.

3. Absence of Hearings: Federal employees typically have rights to notice and opportunity to respond before adverse employment actions. DOGE's rapid termination approach—giving supervisors only "two or three sentences" to justify retention—suggests these protections may have been bypassed.

The Washington Post article describing DOGE's "detonation of a crisis" at the NNSA illustrates how these due process concerns extend beyond abstract principles to concrete national security risks when critical roles are left vacant.

First Amendment Implications

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, association, and expression. DOGE's apparent targeting of employees based on ideological grounds may implicate these protections:

1. DEI Program Elimination: Documents indicate DOGE has systematically eliminated Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across government, potentially targeting employees based on protected speech and association.

2. Content Filtering: The use of "CamoGPT" to remove DEIA language from Army training materials represents ideological censorship of government content, raising First Amendment concerns about viewpoint discrimination.

3. Political Loyalty Tests: If DOGE is feeding government employee data into AI systems for ideological classification, as some documents suggest, this could represent an unconstitutional political loyalty test prohibited since the McCarthy era.

These activities suggest DOGE may be using government authority to shape discourse and policy according to political and ideological preferences rather than constitutional principles.

Legal Compliance Issues

Administrative Procedure Act

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes procedures that federal agencies must follow when making rules or decisions. DOGE's activities may violate the APA in several ways:

1. Rulemaking Without Notice and Comment: Major policy changes typically require public notice and comment periods. DOGE's rapid disbanding of programs and offices appears to bypass these requirements.

2. Arbitrary and Capricious Actions: The APA prohibits agency actions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." DOGE's decision to terminate radiation managers, emergency preparedness personnel, and fire protection engineers at nuclear facilities—decisions later reversed—exemplifies potentially arbitrary decision-making without proper analysis of consequences.

3. Lack of Record-Building: Agency decisions must be based on established administrative records. DOGE's rapid decisions, such as the $1 spending limit reported to paralyze federal agencies, suggest inadequate record development.

The Washington Post's description of DOGE as applying "Silicon Valley's 'move fast and break things' approach to government agencies with deadly serious missions" highlights how such an approach conflicts with the APA's deliberative requirements.

Civil Service Protections

The Civil Service Reform Act and related statutes establish merit-based systems for federal employment. DOGE's personnel practices may violate these protections:

1. Merit Principles Violations: Federal employment decisions should be based on knowledge, skills, and abilities relevant to job performance. DOGE's mass firings based on probationary status rather than performance assessment contradicts this principle.

2. Prohibited Personnel Practices: The law prohibits employment discrimination based on political affiliation or non-job-related factors. DOGE's apparent targeting of employees involved in DEI programs suggests potential discrimination.

3. Veterans' Preference: Federal law gives hiring preference to veterans. Reports of DOGE closing VA centers and making mass personnel changes may inadvertently or intentionally impact veterans' employment rights.

The "blunt instrument" approach described in reports, where termination decisions relied on employment status rather than assessment of actual job importance, conflicts with civil service law's focus on meritocratic, job-related decision-making.

Federal Records and Information Management

Various laws govern federal records management, including the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act. DOGE's information practices raise concerns:

1. Records Destruction: If DOGE is eliminating government websites and digital materials related to DEI and other programs, this may constitute unauthorized destruction of federal records.

2. Transparency Requirements: Laws like the Freedom of Information Act require preservation of and access to government records. DOGE's reported opacity and lack of documentation may violate these requirements.

3. Information Security Laws: The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) establishes security requirements for federal information systems. DOGE's deployment of young, inexperienced staffers with access to sensitive systems may contravene FISMA's security requirements.

The public access to a DOGE staffer's Google Calendar, revealing sensitive meetings and job interviews, exemplifies poor information security practices that might violate federal standards.

Data Privacy Issues

Access to Sensitive Government Systems

DOGE staffers have reportedly gained access to numerous sensitive government databases containing personal information about millions of Americans:

1. Treasury and IRS Access: Reports indicate DOGE has accessed IRS taxpayer records and Treasury payment systems, which contain detailed financial information on virtually all Americans. As one Senator warned, this constitutes a "national security risk."

2. Social Security Administration Data: DOGE staffers at the SSA reportedly have access to personal identifying information, benefit records, and other sensitive data for millions of recipients.

3. Health and Human Services Information: Access to HHS systems provides exposure to health records, Medicare/Medicaid information, and other personal health data protected by laws like HIPAA.

The presence of Riley Sennott (identified through his public Google Calendar) at NASA, along with his reported connections to companies like Palantir, illustrates how DOGE has inserted personnel into positions with potential access to sensitive government systems without transparent processes.

Insufficient Controls and Vetting

Reports suggest many DOGE personnel lack appropriate security clearances, background checks, or training:

1. Young, Inexperienced Staffers: Many DOGE operatives appear to be in their early twenties with limited professional experience. Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old former Neuralink intern, reportedly has accessed systems at Homeland Security and CISA despite no apparent security credentials.

2. Inadequate Training: Government data systems typically require specialized training on privacy protection and security protocols. The rapid deployment of DOGE personnel suggests such training may be inadequate or nonexistent.

3. Bypassed Vetting: Reports indicate some DOGE staff, like Akash Bobba at SSA, were sworn in "over the phone, contrary to standard practice," potentially circumventing normal security protocols.

These practices create significant risks for data breaches, misuse, or unauthorized disclosure of sensitive personal information.

Potential for AI Training on Government Data

Perhaps most concerning from a privacy perspective are indications that data accessed by DOGE could be used to train AI systems:

1. Links to xAI: Multiple reports suggest DOGE-accessed government data could potentially be used to train Musk's xAI models, including Grok. As one article states, such data could give xAI an "almost insurmountable advantage" over competitors like OpenAI and Google.

2. Absence of Consent: Americans are legally required to provide data to agencies like the IRS or SSA but have never consented to its use for AI training by private companies.

3. Potential for Mass Surveillance: Combining powerful AI with comprehensive government datasets creates unprecedented surveillance capabilities. As one article warns, this could become "a real-time AI-powered system that categorizes individuals based on ideology, predicts resistance, and neutralizes dissent."

The overlap between Musk's corporate interests and DOGE activities raises the troubling possibility that government data collected for specific statutory purposes could be repurposed for private benefit without proper safeguards or consent.

Ethical and Moral Issues

Conflicts of Interest

The intertwining of Musk's business interests with government functions creates fundamental ethical conflicts:

1. Simultaneous Public and Private Roles: Musk simultaneously serves as the de facto leader of DOGE while maintaining CEO positions at Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, and other companies that have significant business with the government.

2. Regulatory Capture: DOGE reportedly targets agencies that regulate Musk's businesses, including the SEC (which has investigated Tesla), the FAA (which regulates SpaceX), and NLRB (which was investigating labor practices at Musk's companies).

3. Staff Overlap: According to TechCrunch's investigation, many DOGE staffers have worked at Musk's companies or maintain current employment there. This creates dual loyalty issues where it's unclear whether they serve public or private interests.

The discovery that DOGE and Musk-related websites share the same Cloudflare ID suggests the technical infrastructure of public and private operations may also be commingled, further blurring ethical boundaries.

Technocratic Governance and Democratic Values

DOGE represents a shift toward technocratic governance that raises profound ethical questions:

1. Unelected Authority: Neither Musk nor most DOGE staffers have been elected or confirmed by the Senate, yet they wield enormous influence over government operations affecting millions.

2. Expertise vs. Experience: While many DOGE staff have technical skills, they often lack public administration experience or domain knowledge in the agencies they're restructuring. This raises questions about what qualifies someone to make decisions affecting critical public services.

3. Efficiency vs. Public Good: DOGE's elevation of "efficiency" above other public values like accessibility, equity, or sustainability represents a particular value judgment. The apparent deaths resulting from program cuts suggest efficiency alone may be an insufficient metric for good governance.

The TechCrunch documentation of young DOGE staffers, including those in their early twenties with limited work experience but access to critical systems, highlights the gap between technical capability and public governance experience.

Treatment of Vulnerable Populations

Perhaps the most morally troubling aspect of DOGE's activities is the disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations:

1. Social Safety Net Cuts: DOGE reportedly targets social programs for elimination, including 255 USAID programs, 185 HHS programs, and 104 Education programs, while largely sparing Defense Department spending. This suggests budget cuts are falling on those most in need.

2. Special Consideration for Disadvantaged Groups: DEI programs are often designed to address historical inequities. Their systematic elimination may disproportionately harm marginalized communities.

3. Public Health and Safety: Cuts to health programs, weather monitoring services, and safety inspections create risks for all Americans but particularly impact those without resources to compensate for degraded public services.

Governor Healey's quoted statement that "Donald Trump and Elon Musk have declared that feeding children and supporting local farmers are no longer 'priorities'" encapsulates the ethical question of whose interests are being prioritized in DOGE's restructuring.

Due Diligence and Duty of Care

Inadequate Risk Assessment

DOGE's actions demonstrate insufficient consideration of the consequences of rapid government restructuring:

1. Critical Function Identification: The firing of NNSA radiation managers, emergency preparedness staff, and fire protection engineers—roles directly responsible for preventing catastrophic incidents at nuclear facilities—shows a failure to identify critical functions before termination decisions.

2. Interdependency Analysis: Government systems are complex and interconnected. DOGE appears to have made cuts without understanding downstream dependencies, leading to some rapid reversals when consequences became apparent.

3. National Security Implications: Decisions affecting national security infrastructure, including nuclear facilities and cybersecurity agencies, require particularly careful assessment. The characterization of DOGE as "recklessly overbroad" in its approach suggests due diligence has been inadequate.

The Washington Post's reporting that DOGE people "did not understand how our nuclear weapons system works" exemplifies this failure of due diligence when making consequential changes to critical systems.

Professional Standards and Expertise

DOGE's approach appears to disregard professional standards established in government administration:

1. Subject Matter Expertise: Effective governance typically requires deep domain knowledge. Placing young tech workers with minimal government experience in charge of complex federal systems bypasses this principle.

2. Professional Development: Government careers typically involve progressive responsibility development. DOGE's deployment of recent graduates to leadership positions, like 22-year-old Ethan Shaotran reportedly accessing a decade of GSA data, shortcuts this development process.

3. Institutional Knowledge: Long-term civil servants possess invaluable institutional knowledge about why systems work as they do. Mass terminations discard this knowledge, potentially leading to unintended consequences.

The contrast between DOGE's "Silicon Valley's 'move fast and break things' ethos" and the careful deliberation required for managing critical government functions highlights this disregard for established professional standards.

Accountability for Outcomes

DOGE appears to lack mechanisms to hold decision-makers accountable for negative outcomes:

1. Responsibility Diffusion: The complex and somewhat ambiguous structure of DOGE—with some personnel reportedly having dual roles or unclear reporting relationships—makes it difficult to assign responsibility for decisions.

2. Outcome Tracking: There's little evidence of systems to track the impacts of DOGE's changes on government services, citizen welfare, or national security.

3. Course Correction: While some decisions have been reversed (like NNSA firings), there's no apparent systematic process for identifying and correcting errors or missteps.

The absence of clear accountability structures means the duty of care owed to the American public may be compromised, with potentially serious consequences for health, safety, and welfare.

The Concept of a 'Reliable' Government

Predictability and Continuity

Reliable governance requires predictability and continuity of essential services:

1. Abrupt Changes: DOGE's rapid termination of programs and personnel disrupts predictable government operations. Citizens, businesses, and other governments rely on consistent application of rules and delivery of services.

2. Institutional Memory: Mass personnel terminations eliminate institutional memory necessary for consistent interpretation and application of laws and regulations.

3. Planning Horizons: Sudden policy shifts undermine long-term planning by stakeholders who depend on government services, grants, or contracts.

The DOGE staffers' reported "bankshot" across government systems, where cuts in one area cause unpredictable effects in others, exemplifies how reliability is undermined by insufficiently planned changes.

Competence and Effectiveness

A reliable government ensures competent execution of its functions:

1. Qualified Personnel: Government positions typically require specific qualifications and experience. Installing inexperienced staff in critical roles risks incompetent execution.

2. Adequate Resources: DOGE's reported $1 spending limit and other aggressive cuts potentially deprive agencies of resources needed to function effectively.

3. Systems Maintenance: Complex government systems require ongoing maintenance and updates. Disruptions to IT staff and budgets could lead to system failures affecting millions.

The characterization of DOGE as "incompetent" in its application of cost-cutting measures to the NNSA highlights the risk of undermining government competence through poorly executed changes.

Trust and Legitimacy

Perhaps most fundamentally, reliable government depends on public trust and perceived legitimacy:

1. Transparent Processes: DOGE's operations appear largely opaque, with limited public information about decision-making processes or criteria.

2. Consistent Application: Reports of uneven cuts—heavily targeting social services while largely sparing defense—create perceptions of political bias rather than objective efficiency improvement.

3. Public Accountability: The unclear lines of authority and responsibility in DOGE make it difficult for the public to hold decision-makers accountable, undermining democratic legitimacy.

The description of DOGE as potentially a "deep state" entity—unelected, largely unaccountable, yet wielding enormous power—highlights the threat to democratic legitimacy posed by such governance approaches.

Protection of Vulnerable Populations

Impact on Lower-Income Americans

DOGE's reported focus on cutting social services disproportionately affects economically vulnerable Americans:

1. Safety Net Reductions: Cuts to programs for food security, housing assistance, healthcare access, and income support leave lower-income Americans without essential resources.

2. Job Losses: Mass terminations in social service agencies not only eliminate public sector jobs but reduce services that help disadvantaged Americans find and maintain employment.

3. Disadvantaged Communities: When public services are reduced, those with financial resources can often find private alternatives, while disadvantaged communities typically cannot.

The Massachusetts governor's quoted statement that DOGE cuts affect "feeding children and supporting local farmers" illustrates how these changes impact fundamental needs of vulnerable populations.

Health and Safety Risks

Cuts to health and safety programs create particular risks for vulnerable groups:

1. Healthcare Access: Reductions in HHS programs potentially limit access to care for those without private insurance or financial resources for out-of-pocket expenses.

2. Environmental Protection: EPA cuts disproportionately affect communities near pollution sources, which are often lower-income and minority neighborhoods.

3. Emergency Preparedness: Reduced funding for agencies like FEMA or the National Weather Service creates heightened risks during natural disasters for those without resources to prepare, evacuate, or recover independently.

The report of DOGE cutting the National Weather Service capacity before hurricane season exemplifies how these changes can create life-threatening situations for vulnerable communities.

Global Humanitarian Impact

DOGE's reported elimination of 255 USAID programs potentially affects millions of vulnerable people worldwide:

1. Humanitarian Assistance: USAID provides critical food, medical, and shelter assistance to people affected by conflict, natural disasters, and extreme poverty.

2. Disease Prevention: USAID funds essential disease prevention and treatment programs, including malaria prevention, HIV/AIDS treatment, and pandemic preparedness.

3. Stability Support: Development assistance helps stabilize fragile regions, reducing vulnerability to extremism, conflict, and forced migration.

The estimate that USAID cuts could put 50,000-100,000 lives at risk globally underscores the humanitarian consequences of DOGE's efficiency measures on the world's most vulnerable populations.

Remedies and Countermeasures

For Government Officials

Career civil servants and agency leaders have several potential remedies available:

1. Legal Challenges: Agency counsel can file legal challenges to DOGE directives that violate statutes, regulations, or constitutional principles. The lawsuits already filed regarding Treasury access and OPM hiring practices provide examples.

2. Whistleblower Disclosures: Officials with knowledge of illegal actions or risks to public health and safety can make protected disclosures to the Office of Special Counsel, Congressional committees, or Inspectors General.

3. Documentation and Record-Keeping: Meticulously documenting DOGE directives, their impacts, and any legal or ethical concerns creates evidence for potential accountability processes and historical record.

4. Resignation in Protest: In extreme cases, public resignation with clear explanation of concerns can draw attention to problematic directives and preserve professional integrity.

The reported case of Marko Elez briefly resigning from DOGE after racist posts were exposed demonstrates how personnel actions can create accountability pressure.

For Citizens and Civil Society

The public and civil society organizations can employ various remedies:

1. Litigation: Organizations like unions, advocacy groups, and state governments have already sued DOGE over employment practices, data access, and other issues. These lawsuits can establish important legal precedents.

2. Freedom of Information Requests: FOIA requests can uncover details about DOGE operations, creating transparency and accountability.

3. Public Advocacy: Public protests, media campaigns, and advocacy with elected representatives can build political pressure against problematic aspects of DOGE's operations.

4. Community Mutual Aid: As government services are reduced, community organizations can organize mutual aid to support affected populations, though this is necessarily limited.

The reports of protests in "red districts" suggest that public resistance is building even in areas that have traditionally supported the Trump administration.

For Congress

Congress has particularly powerful tools to address DOGE overreach:

1. Appropriations Limits: Congress can use its "power of the purse" to restrict funding for DOGE activities it finds problematic.

2. Oversight Hearings: Congressional committees can conduct oversight hearings to investigate DOGE operations, requiring testimony from Musk and other officials.

3. Legislation: Congress can pass legislation clarifying the limits of DOGE's authority, establishing requirements for transparency, or even abolishing it entirely.

4. Constitutional Challenge: Congress can assert its constitutional prerogatives if DOGE encroaches on legislative authority, potentially through court challenges.

Senator Murphy's public criticism of DOGE as potentially "the most corrupt in U.S. history" represents an early step in congressional pushback.

For the Judiciary

Courts have a vital role in checking potentially unlawful DOGE actions:

1. Injunctive Relief: Courts can issue injunctions halting DOGE actions that appear to violate law or constitutional principles until full review.

2. Judicial Review: Under the APA and constitutional principles, courts can review and potentially invalidate DOGE actions found to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

3. Enforcement of Orders: When DOGE officials ignore court directives, judges can enforce compliance through contempt powers and other mechanisms.

4. Constitutional Interpretation: Courts ultimately determine the constitutional boundaries of executive power that DOGE might test.

The reported Supreme Court "rebukes" of DOGE suggest the judiciary has begun asserting its authority in this context.

For Businesses and Contractors

Private sector entities affected by DOGE's activities have several recourse options:

1. Contract Litigation: Companies with canceled contracts may have breach of contract claims against the government if terminations violate contractual terms.

2. Regulatory Comments: When regulatory changes are proposed, businesses can submit detailed comments highlighting potential problems or unintended consequences.

3. Industry Coalitions: Forming coalitions of affected businesses can create more effective advocacy than individual efforts.

4. Public-Private Alternatives: In some cases, private sector initiatives can fill gaps left by reduced government services, though this raises equity concerns.

The reports of government contractors being affected by DOGE's $1 spending limit illustrates how businesses are directly impacted by these policies.

Conclusion: The Stakes of the DOGE Experiment

The Department of Government Efficiency represents an unprecedented experiment in American governance—one that raises fundamental questions about constitutional boundaries, legal compliance, democratic accountability, and the proper relationship between government and the private sector. While government inefficiency is a legitimate concern, DOGE's methods appear to prioritize speed and disruption over deliberation, expertise, and due process.

The ethical and constitutional questions surrounding DOGE extend far beyond partisan politics. At stake are core principles of American democracy: that power should be dispersed rather than concentrated, that governance should be transparent and accountable, that public service should prioritize the common good over private interests, and that vulnerable populations deserve special protection.

The remedies discussed above offer potential paths to address concerns about DOGE's operations. However, their effectiveness depends on the resilience of democratic institutions that DOGE itself may be weakening. The coming months will test whether America's constitutional system can contain an entity that seems deliberately designed to operate outside traditional constraints.

What emerges from this examination is not a simple story of government streamlining but a complex cautionary tale about the risks of allowing concentrated private power to reshape public institutions without adequate safeguards, transparency, or democratic accountability. The DOGE experiment may ultimately reveal more about the strength of America's constitutional democracy than about the inefficiencies it purports to address.

Appendix: DOGE Personnel and Affiliations

Inner Circle

1. Elon Musk - DOGE Lead, Special Government Employee; CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, xAI; founder of The Boring Company; owner of X (Twitter)

2. Steve Davis - Long-time Musk insider; President of The Boring Company; former SpaceX employee; helped reorganize Twitter/X after acquisition

3. Nicole Hollander - X employee; former employee of real estate developer JGB Smith; relationship with Steve Davis

4. Brian Bjelde - Senior Advisor, Office of Personnel Management; 21-year SpaceX veteran (employee #14); VP People Operations at SpaceX

5. Amanda Scales - Chief of Staff, Office of Personnel Management; former talent acquisition at xAI (until January 2025); also worked at Human Capital and Uber

6. Branden Spikes - Head of IT at X; Former DOGE Operative; fourth hire at SpaceX; among first employees at PayPal

Senior Figures

7. Jehn Balajadia - Long-time Musk assistant; operations coordinator at The Boring Company; former executive assistant to Musk; previously worked at Red Bull, NBCUniversal, and Walt Disney

8. Riccardo Biasini - Senior Advisor to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management; former Tesla engineer (2011-2016); worked at Comma.ai; director of electrical and software engineering at The Boring Company

9. Amy Gleason - Acting DOGE administrator; previously served at the U.S. Digital Service (2018-2021); former chief product officer at Russell Street Ventures

10. Michael Russo - Chief Information Officer, Social Security Administration; former CTO at Shift4; senior director at Oracle

11. Christopher Stanley - Unspecified role at White House; began working for Musk in October 2022 for Twitter transition team; head of security engineering at X; principal security engineer at SpaceX; CISO at X Payments

Worker Bees at DOGE

12. Akash Bobba - Expert, Office of Personnel Management; reportedly a student at UC Berkeley; previous intern at Meta and Palantir; worked at Bridgewater Associates

13. Edward Coristine - Special Government Employee; age 19; former intern at Neuralink; has accessed systems at several government departments including Homeland Security and CISA

14. Scott Coulter - IT Specialist, Social Security Administration; previously headed Cowbird Capital

15. Marko Elez - Special Government Employee, U.S. Treasury; has access to Treasury payment systems; previously worked at SpaceX and X

16. Luke Farritor - Senior Advisor, DOGE; age 23; worked at multiple departments including State Department, USAID, and Department of Energy; former SpaceX intern

17. Gautier 'Cole' Killian - DOGE "Volunteer"; Federal Detailee at the EPA; former student at McGill University

18. Gavin Kliger - Special Advisor to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management; also has USAID email address and listed in CFPB staff directory; worked at Databricks; interned at Twitter

19. Tom Krause - Special Government Employee, U.S. Treasury; CEO, Cloud Software Group; former executive at Broadcom

20. Jeremy Lewin - DOGE Staffer at General Services Administration; Harvard Law School graduate; worked at Munger, Tolles & Olson

21. Aram Moghaddassi - DOGE Operative at Department of Labor; also planned for Treasury; worked at X, Neuralink, and Tesla

22. Nikhil Rajpal - DOGE Staffer at NOAA; former Twitter employee; studied at UC Berkeley

23. Kyle Schutt - DOGE Technologist with access to FEMA systems; works at Outburst Data; CTO at Republican fundraising platform Revv

24. Ethan Shaotran - DOGE Staffer; age 22; Harvard University student; has GSA email address and requested access to a decade of GSA data

25. Thomas Shedd - Director of Technology Transformation Services, GSA; former Tesla engineer for eight years

26. Jordan Wick - DOGE Staffer with Executive Office of the President email; former Waymo software engineer; co-founder of Y Combinator startup Intercept

27. Christopher Young - DOGE Staffer with CFPB email; Republican field operative hired as Musk's political advisor in 2024

Aides and Advisors

28. Marc Andreessen - Unofficial Advisor to DOGE; co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz VC firm; referred to himself as DOGE "unpaid intern"

29. George Cooper - DOGE Recruiter; Palantir engineer

30. Vinay Hiremath - DOGE Recruiter; co-founder of video recording startup Loom

31. Anthony Jancso - DOGE Recruiter; former Palantir software engineer; co-founded Accelerate SF

32. Michael Kratsios - DOGE Recruiter; former managing director of Scale AI; U.S. CTO during Trump's first term; principal at Thiel Capital

33. Katie Miller - DOGE Advisor & Spokesperson; served in first Trump administration; spouse of Trump's deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller

This list represents identified personnel as of March 2025, according to the documents provided. It likely does not include all DOGE-affiliated individuals.