On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order creating DOGE – the Department of Government Efficiency. Helmed by tech billionaire Elon Musk, whose goal is to cut government waste and slash federal regulations, the government entity has already caused widespread chaos.
“We needed a better view from inside government of not just the money that was being spent, but the intended purpose for that being spent,” said Rep. Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas and co-chair of the DOGE Caucus. The House of Representatives created the caucus to partner with DOGE.
So far, the administration’s push to curb waste has resulted in:
- A confusing federal funding freeze
- A controversial “deferred resignation” offer for federal employees
- The shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development
These actions have been met with legal challenges, and the full scope of DOGE’s work and how the entity will collaborate with the rest of the government remain unclear.
Interview highlights
Mary Louise Kelly: What is your assessment of DOGE so far? Are you happy with how quickly Musk is moving?
Pete Sessions: The assessment is that we needed a better view from inside government of not just the money that was being spent, but the intended purpose for that being spent. We just heard on NPR a minute ago that it costs $0.03 to make a penny that would be printed at the Mint. So, the president is questioning whether we should have pennies or not. I think that generally is the way Congress looks at it. Are we getting for the American people the best dollar advantage and a brighter future for our citizens? And I think that then those questions do need to come to Congress. Congress needs to have some way to debate this.
Kelly: So far, is anything about the scope and speed of the changes by DOGE raising questions for you?
Sessions: I’m a corporate guy — came from AT&T, 16 years. I see things as trying to have a plan, present the plan, making sure people understand what it is, and then moving forward on it. I’d like to be able to inform people on a more regular basis exactly what the president is thinking, and he’s moving rapidly.
Kelly: One of the Democrats who has just departed [from the DOGE caucus] is Val Hoyle of Oregon. She quit last week. She issued a blistering statement as to why. I want to read you just one section because I would love to invite you to respond. She says she joined in a good-faith effort to make the government more efficient. She’s on board with that. But, I quote: “It is impossible for us to do that important work when unelected billionaire Elon Musk and his lackeys are set on burning down the government — and the law to — line his own pockets and rip off Americans across the country who depend on government services to live with dignity.” Congressman, how do you respond to that?
Sessions: We needed someone who had great knowledge to be able to go in and not only look at the things that are being spent, but would be able to advise us on things quickly. And we have outside contractors all the time. We want entrepreneurs who see faster, better ways to get things done. Do I believe that we will gain information from this? Yes, I do. I’m hoping that we have smart people who will be able to bring a new, better, direct way to look at providing not only services to people, but what’s in the best interest of the American people. I’m still in this and amazed at what I see.
Kelly: The U.S. Constitution, as you know, assigns Congress the job of deciding how to spend taxpayer dollars. Three weeks in, Republicans in Congress are not putting up much of a fight, as Elon Musk and President Trump effectively grab the power of the purse from the legislative branch. Congressman, should you be putting up a fight?
Sessions: In fact, we’re trying to gain visibility into that. But once again, the ideas that flowed back are about an incredible amount of money that has not been brought forth, I think, honestly, by appropriators — if they appropriated it or by an administration that was forthright about how they were spending their money. So this is first cut.
Kelly: But to circle back to where I began when I was asking, is there anything specific that is raising questions for you? Shuttering USAID — setting aside whether that’s a good idea or a bad idea — does the way it was handled step on the separation of powers?
Sessions: I think that one would offer some feedback to say, are you after all of USAID or the things that don’t fit within the mission? And then the debate and the discussion would be, do you think the entire USAID is not in the best interest of the American people? And that’s where the discussion is going to be and still will be. I think Pete Morocco — as the administrator for that right now— he’s trying to make that determination.
