Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government (FSGG), and Subcommittee Members Rep. Mark Pocan (WI-02), Rep. Glenn Ivey (MD-04), Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (GA-02), and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) sent a letter to Subcommittee Chair David Joyce (OH-14) demanding he hold an oversight hearing on the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS) and call on Elon Musk to testify. In addition to Musk, they urged Chair Joyce to have DOGE’s Acting Administrator Amy Gleason and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought testify before the Subcommittee regarding DOGE’s activities and use of Congressionally authorized funds. The Members reiterated FSGG’s responsibility to conduct oversight as the subcommittee that oversees funding for the Executive Office of the President, which includes both DOGE and OMB.
“Over the past several weeks, the scale and nature of Mr. Musk’s and the USDS’ involvement in federal policy and operations have elicited serious alarms from constituents in our districts and across the country,” the Members wrote. “We expect this hearing to provide transparency and substantive documentation regarding the activity, use of appropriations, and personnel arrangements of USDS, the formal role played by Mr. Musk and others in USDS, whether Mr. Musk should require nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate and the authority, if any, of the entity to act as an agency.”
Since Donald Trump took office, Elon Musk and DOGE have continued to illegally purge tens of thousands of nonpartisan federal employees. Their removal has disrupted many of the vital services federal agencies provide to the American people every day. Already, federal judges have determined that many of DOGE’s actions broke the law and have reinstated many of the cut workers and programs. Yet DOGE continues to operate without transparency, without statutory authority, and without appropriated funding.
The full text of the letter is below:
Dear Chairman Joyce,
We write to request that the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee hold an oversight hearing as soon as possible regarding the United States DOGE Service (USDS), established within the Executive Office of the President, and that Elon Musk, whom the President has described as the head of DOGE, Acting USDS Administrator Amy Gleason, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought testify before the Subcommittee regarding USDS’s activities and use of Congressionally authorized funds. Over the past several weeks, the scale and nature of Mr. Musk’s and the USDS’ involvement in federal policy and operations have elicited serious alarms from constituents in our districts and across the country. We expect this hearing to provide transparency and substantive documentation regarding the activity, use of
appropriations, and personnel arrangements of USDS, the formal role played by Mr. Musk and others in USDS, whether Mr. Musk should require nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate, and the authority, if any, of the entity to act as an agency.
As you are aware, President Trump recently established the United States DOGE Service by Executive Order 14158, renaming the United States Digital Service as the United States DOGE Service, reorganizing it within the Executive Office of the President, and creating a temporary organization within USDS known as “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization.” The order directed USDS to “moderniz[e] Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity,” while establishing that the temporary organization “shall be dedicated to advancing the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda.” Despite being reorganized by Executive Order, this entity has never been statutorily authorized, not while it was the Digital Service, nor presently as USDS and the temporary organization. Given all of that, it is particularly important
that the mechanisms by which USDS’s operations are funded receive oversight from this Committee.
Numerous components of the Executive Office of the President are appropriated through our bill. This includes those that (1) have “substantial independent authority” and (2) those whose “sole function is to advise and assist the President,” and as a result, are subject to the Presidential Records Act instead of the Federal Records Act. Entities under the former generally are established by law, have statutory duties, and qualify as “agencies” for the purposes of various laws.
Although USDS is not established by law, multiple federal courts have indicated that USDS would appear to fall into the former category of entities that qualify as an “agency” under statutes such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), because USDS “appears to do much more than advise and assist the President.” We note, however, that some members of the Administration have argued that USDS should be characterized as part of the latter – EOP components that solely advise and assist the President. An oversight hearing would allow the Administration to confirm that and explain how its many policymaking activities could possibly be viewed as those of merely an advisory body.
Additionally, apportionment records appear to indicate that transfer authority within the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. § 1535) is the source and primary method by which USDS funds its operations. If USDS is indeed an advisory body, such use constitutes a misapplication of the authorities contained within the Economy Act. We note that the “Economy Act does not give a performing agency any authority that it would not otherwise have.” If, as described above, the Administration considers USDS to be a solely advisory body, such an approach contradicts the Economy Act’s authorization for the provision of “goods or services” to outside agencies as part of the latter’s statutory operations. The Administration deserves the opportunity to testify before this Committee to explain USDS’ ability to enter into and use such agreements to fund its operations.
Under the Constitution and the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Executive Branch may not spend funds absent an appropriation from Congress. Thus, like any other executive agency, USDS must possess a valid appropriation to fund its operations. When we appropriate funds, an agency may not spend the money until OMB has apportioned funds for the agency. As a new component that did not exist at the time the current government funding acts were passed, we did not directly provide any appropriation for USDS. Nevertheless, USDS has received a series of apportionments from the OMB, including a transfer of funds from the “Information Technology Oversight and Reform” (ITOR) account, for “anticipated reimbursements from agencies in support of Software Modernization Initiative,” and amounts for which the Economy Act is cited as a funding source. These apportionments indicate that some of the money is available until expended, known as “no-year” money.
This Committee’s concerns regarding the use of the ITOR account include the need for greater transparency and fiscal responsibility. It is imperative that Mr. Musk, Ms. Gleason, and Director Vought be forthcoming regarding USDS’ financial management practices. Oversight from our Committee will allow for a robust discussion about the appropriate funding mechanism for USDS to ensure compliance with necessary guardrails regarding authority, approvals, and use of the Economy Act. There is no doubt that technology experts are needed amongst the federal agencies and the importance of prioritizing investments in technology to improve government efficiency, however it should not be at the expense of the law.
The Constitution clearly states that “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Congress is empowered with the power of the purse. This Committee holds jurisdiction for the appropriations for the Executive Office of the President, which includes both USDS and the Office of Management and Budget. For these reasons, we urgently request that the Subcommittee convene an oversight hearing with Mr. Musk, whom the President has described as the head of DOGE, Acting USDS Administrator Amy Gleason, and OMB Director Vought to provide transparency and substantive answers for our constituents and to consider whether more systemic reforms are needed to address USDS’s functions.
Thank you, and we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,