You should try to use your own brain more, read whole articles (plural, nkt just one) rather than just some headline. I know it's hard in this tik tok low attention span world.

Civics 101 teaches us that Congress in charge of the purse, not the executive branch. Given than any authority DOGE has was granted solely by the executive, any "cost-cutting" he has done is likely the beginning of a long, expensive, legal battle that DOGE will inevitably lose.

Even if you agree with the goals, the methods are not just bad... they're illegal, ineffective, and likely to be very expensive in the long run. They should have just done it properly.

>>Congress in charge of the purse

Congress authorizes appropriations for new expenses (so that executive branch could not authorize their own expenses at taxpayer cost), but not cost cutting within executive branch

That's patently ridiculous to anyone who has read the constitution lately. It was even a ridiculous idea to Republicans a few months ago when they argued that forgiving student loan debt was outside of the presidents power, despite that money having already been approved by Congress and spent. They can not in good faith now argue that the executive gets final and unlimited authority over spending.

Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve spending and article II Section 3 says that the president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". That's all of the authority over the budget the president has: the ability to faithfully execute the spending Congress approved or to veto the bill when it's passed.

Further, the matter has been to the supreme court TWICE already. First during Nixon's reign in the 70's (Nixon lost), then later under Clinton during the line-item veto mess. Clinton also lost, rightfully.

The worst part of all of this is that I know these things and I'm NOT someone who swore to uphold the constitution.