HB1535, titled the “Bolstering America’s Democracy and Demanding Oversight and Government Ethics Act” or the “BAD DOGE Act,” would repeal President Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order establishing and implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). The bill’s findings assert that the United States DOGE Service and its temporary organization were created and operated beyond their lawful authority, and that Elon Musk was effectively directing the effort without a formal federal appointment or the usual disclosure, ethics, and conflict-of-interest requirements.
The bill is framed as a direct response to alleged overreach by DOGE-related entities, including access to federal personnel records, control over Treasury payment systems, freezing payments, locking employees out of systems, offering buyouts, and attempting to dismantle agencies or programs without congressional approval. It also alleges violations of constitutional provisions and a wide range of federal statutes governing appropriations, privacy, information security, administrative procedure, and ethics. Section 3 would make Executive Order 14158 have no force or effect, effectively nullifying the DOGE framework created by that order.
If enacted, HB1535 would eliminate the legal effect of Executive Order 14158 and terminate the President’s DOGE initiative as established by that order. In practical terms, it would remove the executive branch’s asserted authority for the United States DOGE Service temporary organization and related activities described in the bill, and it would reinforce congressional control over agency structure, spending, personnel data, and program changes. The bill does not amend a specific U.S. Code provision directly; instead, it targets an executive order and relies on Congress’s oversight and appropriations powers to constrain executive action.
The available context suggests the bill is strongly oppositional and highly critical of the DOGE initiative and of Elon Musk’s role in it. The bill’s findings use forceful language about unlawful conduct, constitutional violations, and ethics concerns, indicating a clear negative sentiment toward the executive order and the activities carried out under it. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no evidence here of bipartisan support, negotiated compromise, or formal committee debate.
The main points of contention are executive authority versus congressional control, and whether the DOGE entities are operating within the limits of the executive order and federal law. Supporters of the bill would likely argue that DOGE has exceeded its mandate, accessed sensitive data, and made decisions affecting agencies and programs without statutory authority or proper appointments. Opponents would likely defend the administration’s ability to reorganize and modernize government operations, and may dispute the bill’s characterization of Musk’s role, the legality of the temporary organization, and whether the cited actions actually violated law. The bill also raises broader concerns about privacy, cybersecurity, appropriations, and ethics compliance.