On Thursday, U.S. Representative Hillary Scholten (D-Grand Rapids) presented legislation that she claims will hold billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) accountable for their conduct.
The Consistent Legal Expectations and Access to Records (CLEAR) Act makes it clear that transitory organizations like DOGE are governed by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to a news statement from Scholten’s office.
According to the release, these institutions ought to be held to the same standards of public information sharing and scrutiny as other agencies, considering the extent of their influence.
Using an executive order that gives the president the power to establish temporary entities, President Donald Trump established DOGE. To make it obvious that every group established in that way is immediately vulnerable to FOIA requests, Scholten sponsored the legislation.
Many people are wondering what is going on as turmoil reigns in the first two weeks of Trump’s second term. Scholten claimed that unprecedented access to government data and the personal information of Americans had been granted to an unelected billionaire with multiple conflicts of interest. He is in charge of these taxpayer monies, and the American people have a right to know what is going on. Power comes from knowledge, and in America, the people own that power. No president, Democrat or Republican, will be able to conceal their activities from the American people thanks to my measure.
The acts of DOGE, particularly the access offered to its members to the Treasury Department’s payment system, which manages trillions of dollars in payments, such as income taxes, Social Security benefits, and veterans’ compensation, have alarmed Democrats and transparency advocates.
If the bill is enacted into law, it will take effect retrospectively, making all of DOGE’s documents since its founding public.
Concerns regarding accountability for Musk and DOGE’s activities have also been voiced by U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin.
Slotkin wrote on X, Musk’s social media platform, that “targeting our federal government of law enforcement, flight safety inspectors, weather forecasters, people who test our drinking water, and doctors conducting clinical trials for children with cancer is not just wrong, it will result in Americans being less safe.” The unelected billionaire Elon Musk now has access to sensitive tax records and other private and personal data about Americans. This raises a number of concerns around the misuse and exploitation of such data to target citizens for financial or legal advantage.
There is value in the judicial process, according to Samuel Bagenstos, the Frank G. Millard Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, who focuses on civil rights, labor and employment law, health law, and governance. He made this statement to the Advance this week.
Lawsuits and the legal process surrounding them serve to highlight information about what is happening, even if they ultimately fail to get an injunction that stops Trump from doing what he is doing. Both aid in raising awareness of the situation because journalists will cover the lawsuit and its proceedings, making them a topic of public conversation. However, during the lawsuit process, courts have the authority to order defendants to give plaintiffs information, he added.
Bagenstos was the principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration, testified before Congress on numerous occasions, argued four cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and most recently served as general counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the Biden administration. In 2018, the Democratic Party nominated him to serve on the Michigan Supreme Court.
Although there are many reasons to be concerned about Elon Musk’s actions based on his own remarks, we do not yet know exactly what he is doing within the executive branch. However, a court has the authority to require him to disclose his actions or to order the government to disclose if Elon Musk has been given access to the federal payment system. What extent does that access extend? Who gave permission for that access? Does Elon Musk or someone collaborating with him now have the power to halt federal payments? What was the rationale for those people’s appointment to the government, and who gave the go-ahead for that? “Said Bagenstos.”
All of these issues are crucial for us to know the answers to, but we may not be able to trust the White House press officials’ responses. Therefore, even though courts won’t ultimately stop everything Trump does, there are many reasons why we might want to keep arguing that what Trump is doing is an abuse of his legal authority. However, a court might be able to obtain more authoritative information on that.
OUR WORK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY YOU.
Eliot Pierce is a dedicated writer for ChiefsFocus.com, covering local crime and finance news. With a keen eye for detail and a passion for storytelling, Eliot aims to provide his readers with clear and insightful analysis, helping them navigate the complexities of their financial lives while staying informed about important local events. His commitment to delivering accurate and engaging content makes him a valuable resource for the community.