Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by…
This bill ("Delete DOGE Act") prohibits use of Federal funds to implement specified executive orders (EOs 14158, 14210, 14222 and successors) that establish a Department of Government Efficiency and related entities.
It defines covered entities (United States DOGE Service, temporary organization, DOGE Teams, successors) and covered individuals (anyone associated on or after January 20, 2025), and bars Federal funding or use of Federal resources for those entities, projects initiated by them after January 20, 2025, and for covered individuals to act under color of government.
The bill also limits United States Digital Service (USDS) funds to only the functions they had on January 19, 2025.
Substantive constraint on executive authority and partisan framing reduce cross‑chamber and presidential accommodation prospects; legal challenges possible.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted substantive policy change that relies principally on statutory prohibitions of Federal funding to disable certain entities and the implementation of specified executive orders. It supplies clear definitions and cutoff dates and therefore is reasonably specific about what is covered. However, it provides minimal procedural, fiscal, and enforcement detail.
Progressives emphasize blocking modernization and service delivery harms.
Progressives emphasize blocking modernization and service delivery harms.
Likely critical: views the bill as a rollback of federal capacity to improve digital services and implement efficiency reforms initiated by the executive branch.
Concerned it hobbles modernization and workforce initiatives that can improve public-service delivery and equity.
Some impacts are speculative given limited text on the specific EO contents.
Mixed view: appreciates oversight of new executive reorganizations but worries about blunt funding bans.
Would prefer narrower, evidence-based limits or sunset reviews instead of broad prohibitions.
Sees practical governance and legal uncertainty risks.
Likely supportive: views the bill as a necessary check on executive expansion, preventing creation of a new Department/agency and stopping taxpayer funding for it.
Praises limits on bureaucratic growth and centralized workforce reorganization.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantive constraint on executive authority and partisan framing reduce cross‑chamber and presidential accommodation prospects; legal challenges possible.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize blocking modernization and service delivery harms.
Substantive constraint on executive authority and partisan framing reduce cross‑chamber and presidential accommodation prospects; legal cha…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly targeted substantive policy change that relies principally on statutory prohibitions of Federal funding to disable certain entities and the implementatio…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.