DOGE comes after GAO and OCWR

New developments in the clash between the administration and Congress

Just a short update before going off the grid for a few weeks on the separation of powers issues first raised last Thursday by the administration’s attempt to install an executive branch official as acting Librarian of Congress.

There are some important new developments covered by this (from Law Dork, which describes DOGE’s effort to gain access to Government Accountability Office systems) and this by the AP’s Seung Min Kim. The AP article is a great overview of the whole situation, although wrong on one point: the Library does not “oversee” the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR). OCWR’s server is in the Library system but it is not part of the Library from an organizational standpoint.

The key issue raised by DOGE trying to gain access to GAO and OCWR systems is of course that these agencies are both in the legislative branch and thus not subject to DOGE’s audits. DOGE is an executive branch entity.

There was a day, not too long ago, when it was well understood that government officials could not serve simultaneously in two branches, that there was truly a wall of separation. Putting a Justice Department official at the head of the Library, as the administration is trying to do, of course breaches that wall. DOGE’s efforts at GAO and OCWR similarly violate the separation. This is all in addition to the issues raised by the AP and in our last post concerning the sensitivity of the Congressional Research Service’s confidential contribution to congressional deliberations and members’ representative duties.

Some may remember the 2006 incident (see this) where the FBI raided the office of a (liberal Democratic) congressman who was suspected of having stashed evidence of a crime in his House office. In a time of partisanship as bitter as it is now, The Speaker of the House pushed back hard against the conservative administration of his own party in protection of the prerogatives of the legislative branch. He did this even though he didn’t defend that Democratic member personally (and disagreed with him on virtually everything). The institutional issue was paramount.

It would behoove some current members to review that 2006 clash between the branches; it might serve as a refresher on the principles of constitutional government.