Reorganizer-in-chief

With the unfettered support of Congress, President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed Department of Government Efficiency could make just about any spending cut it wanted. But the Republican Party’s small majorities in the Senate and House mean Trump can only go so far without getting the support of at least a few Democrats—unless Congress gives Trump a workaround.

Congress could streamline the DOGE’s work by delegating some of its authority directly to the executive branch. That’s something it has done for past presidents. But is it something Republicans would consider?

A few years before World War II, Congress passed the Reorganization Act of 1939, giving then–President Franklin D. Roosevelt the ability to modify government agencies on his own. At the time, Roosevelt argued the agencies had become unmanageable.

“The only way in which the president can be relieved of the physically impossible task of directly dealing with 30 or 40 major agencies is by reorganization—by the regrouping of agencies according to their major purposes under responsible heads who will report to the president,” Roosevelt said in an address to Congress.

The Reorganization Act gave the president the power to carry out five main goals: reduce expenditures, increase efficiency, consolidate agencies, abolish agencies, and eliminate duplication of work.

That sounds almost exactly like what DOGE aims to do. I asked David Lewis, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, how that law used to work and whether it could be reimplemented today. Lewis studies the intersection between the executive branch and regulatory agencies.

“The reorganization authority has lapsed,” Lewis explained, referencing the 1939 act. “The way [it worked] is the president would come up with a plan and then it would go into effect after 60 days unless either one or both of the chambers passed a resolution saying, ‘No, we don’t want this to happen.’”

The Supreme Court ruled the process unconstitutional in 1983 in INS v. Chadha, in which a 7-2 majority said the Reorganization Act had reinvented the legislative process.

Since then, “there have been proposals to necessitate a reorganization authority, which is something like a fast-track authority where proposals by the president get privileged [status] in Congress. Something like that is feasible,” Lewis said.

He noted that President Barack Obama floated a similar idea in 2011—an attempt to consolidate and combine a number of government agencies. Congress didn’t bite.

Obama’s plan would have put a time limit on how long a president’s proposal could remain in Congress before it became a top priority or underwent a simple up-or-down vote. The plan would have also shielded proposals to increase government efficiency from amendments and filibusters.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., will soon chair a subcommittee that will work with the DOGE to spearhead cost-cutting efforts in the House.

“I haven’t specifically talked about that, no,” Greene said when asked about a reorganization act.

Rep. Aaron Bean, chairman of the open-invite DOGE caucus, said he hadn’t been approached with the concept, either. Neither had several other Republicans leaving a closed-door meeting with DOGE champions Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy last Thursday.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., is one of the few Democrats who will be on the DOGE subcommittee with Greene next year.

“I’m against having Congress delegate more of its power away,” Moskowitz said. “I wouldn’t support that. That’s our function. I don’t care who’s doing it—Democrats or Republicans. One of the reasons the executive branch has been able to grow is because Congress has let it happen.”

In the past year, Republicans have praised decisions from the Supreme Court that have returned power to Congress—like the landmark Looper Bright v. Raimondo decision in June that overturned the Chevron Doctrine. The reality is that the practical details of how Congress plans to support the DOGE are up in the air.

Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, says it’s time for Congress to consider drastic action.

“Every politician says they’re going to do it, on both sides of the aisle, by the way,” Arrington said of cutting spending. “And now we’re in such a dangerous position on deficits and debt that if we don’t do it in a significant way, we’re going to experience a debt crisis that will undermine our entire economy, our national security and our leadership in the world. This is our generation’s world war.”