The nascent Department of Government Efficiency is currently navigating turbulent waters.

In Silicon Valley, tech moguls are eager to secure roles or connections within this new initiative, even though it isn’t yet an official governmental body. Rather, it’s an informal network named by Elon Musk, inspired by an internet meme. On his social media platform X, Musk posted an image of himself styled as the “Dogefather,” playfully asking government employees, “What did you accomplish this week?”

In Washington, a new House subcommittee has been created to help bring to life President-elect Donald J. Trump’s vision for a department aimed at slashing the massive $6.7 trillion federal budget. Even some Democratic lawmakers are offering suggestions on where to make cuts, with Musk suggesting a potential reduction of $2 trillion.

“It’s going to be easy,” Maye Musk, Elon Musk’s mother, told Fox News, having attended some of her son’s meetings. She suggested that Musk would lead the department alongside Vivek Ramaswamy, a former Republican presidential candidate.

However, as the department begins its work, it will face a series of substantial challenges. For centuries, a complex government structure has evolved to maintain stability during economic crises, wars, and political shifts—such as the current push to reduce its size and spending.

Any attempts to shrink the federal government and cut down its 2.3 million civilian workforce will likely face strong opposition in Congress, lawsuits from advocacy groups, and bureaucratic delays due to federal regulations. Unlike his business ventures, Musk will not have sole decision-making power here. He will need to collaborate with legislators, executive staff, Ramaswamy, and even Trump himself. Additionally, federal law requires that decisions be made transparently, meaning meetings would need to be open to the public, and minutes would be made available.

“All of this has to happen in full view of the public,” said Brian D. Feinstein, a University of Pennsylvania professor specializing in administrative law. A 1972 law mandates that open-records rules apply to advisory committees, with potential legal repercussions if they don’t comply.

Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for Trump’s transition team, declined to offer specifics about the initiative but provided a written statement asserting that Musk and Ramaswamy will focus on cutting unnecessary regulations, reducing wasteful spending, and restructuring federal agencies.

No Pay, Just Work

Musk and Ramaswamy outlined their vision for the department in a recent guest editorial in The Wall Street Journal. The duo described their project as a “lean team of small-government advocates” working within Trump’s administration. Although they would remain outside the government itself, they plan to advise on a voluntary basis.

“Our approach will be different from typical government commissions. We won’t just produce reports or cut ceremonial ribbons—we’ll cut costs,” the two wrote.

Despite its informal nature, Musk’s initiative, dubbed DOGE (short for Department of Government Efficiency), is already recruiting. Musk has been reaching out to his Silicon Valley network to assemble a team, and postings have been made for full-time roles. He even appealed to followers on X, outlining the grueling nature of the job: over 80-hour workweeks, minimal compensation, and potential for conflict.

The spokeswoman for the project did not provide information on the team’s size or whether any staff are currently receiving payment.

In their op-ed, Musk and Ramaswamy noted that their efforts to reduce regulations would be backed by two recent Supreme Court rulings, which limited the power of federal agencies to issue rules. They plan to compile a list of regulations they believe overstep legal boundaries and submit it to President Trump. Through executive action, Trump could pause these regulations’ enforcement and begin the process of repealing them.

Musk and Ramaswamy anticipate that these regulatory cuts will enable them to downsize government staffing, proposing significant headcount reductions across agencies. However, many federal employees are protected by civil service laws, which means they cannot be dismissed without cause or for political reasons.

Legal Hurdles Ahead

Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, cautioned that many of Musk and Ramaswamy’s proposals are likely to face significant legal challenges. He pointed to previous attempts by Trump to expand executive power, which were often blocked by the courts.

One key ruling earlier this year, concerning Chevron deference, was seen as favorable to the executive branch’s ability to invalidate regulations. However, Adler noted that this ruling actually reinforced that agencies, not the president, should determine whether a regulation oversteps legislative intent. Musk’s team could face litigation if they attempt to revoke rules without following the proper procedures, which could result in lawsuits from parties who benefit from the current regulatory landscape.

“We’re looking at a high risk of litigation,” Adler said, emphasizing the need for a carefully considered strategy if Trump’s administration wants to dismantle regulations or reduce the size of government agencies.

Law firms have already begun preparing for potential legal battles, advising clients to brace for disruption. In a briefing this week, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman lawyers warned companies about the fallout from cuts to government contracts or suspensions of certain payments.

“There’s likely to be pushback from government contractors,” they said, “especially if payments are halted while audits are conducted.”

A Familiar Struggle

Robert Kovacev, a lawyer specializing in federal tax disputes, noted that Musk’s regulatory rollback efforts are reminiscent of the Reagan administration’s attempts in the 1980s to freeze and review regulations. While Reagan’s initiative faced challenges, Musk’s team benefits from a Republican-controlled Congress and a conservative Supreme Court majority.

Despite these advantages, Kovacev acknowledged that rescinding regulations could take years, as it involves a lengthy public comment and review process. If legal obstacles emerge, Musk’s team might adopt disruptive tactics, such as relocating or restructuring agencies—similar to what the Trump administration did in its first term.

Congressional Pushback

The fate of Musk and Ramaswamy’s budget-cutting ambitions will largely depend on how much support they can garner from Congress, especially for programs that Trump has pledged to protect, such as Medicare, Social Security, and the military—sectors with strong backing in the legislature.

Historically, large-scale budget-cutting efforts have faltered on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are often reluctant to reduce funding for programs that benefit their constituents, and federal law requires the president to allocate all congressionally-approved funds.

Nonetheless, some Congressional members have shown enthusiasm for the DOGE initiative. Senator Joni Ernst, for instance, proposed steps to cut $2 trillion from the budget, though many of her suggestions would result in minimal savings. Her plan also conflicted with Musk’s, as she advocated allowing federal employees to work from home and selling off unused office space, whereas Musk pushed for mandatory in-office work.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, head of a new House subcommittee supporting DOGE, has been vague about her plans but has expressed her intention to push for hearings aimed at cutting government inefficiencies and targeting wasteful agencies. She also plans to advance legislation, such as the REINS Act, which would require Congressional approval for all new federal regulations.

On the other hand, activist groups like Public Citizen have vowed to use legal avenues to challenge any moves to undermine existing rules. “We will use every tool at our disposal, including lawsuits, to fight back,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “We’ll see how they proceed, and we’ll be ready to push back.”